Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 592 (DEL)

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Ram Prasad Sharma

2012-02-16

INDERMEET KAUR

body2012
JUDGMENT INDERMEET KAUR, J 1. The impugned judgment dated 12.08.2011 had dismissed the application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant in eviction proceedings under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) filed by the landlord Ram Prasad Sharma seeking eviction of his tenant M/s Bhagwan Sahai & Company. Eviction petition accordingly stood decreed. 2. The disputed premises comprise of a godown forming part of property bearing No. 1013-14, Kucha Sarif Beg, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. The averments in the eviction petition disclose that the aforenoted godown had been rented out to the tenant at a monthly rent of `293/-excluding other charges; the tenant was an old tenant; contention of the petitioner is that he is carrying out a general merchandise shop in Bazar Sita Ram which is opposite to the disputed premises; his shop is very small having no storage space available to him to store his merchandise; he accordingly requires the aforenoted premises for storage purpose; further contention is that the petitioners who comprise of a family of two sons, their wives, five grand children besides the two petitioners themselves are living in a very small accommodation i.e. two rooms and a verandah and a store on the first floor, one room and a small room on the second floor which has a latrine; their residential accommodation is also insufficient for their needs. Eviction petition had accordingly been filed. 3 The averments made in the application seeking leave to defend have been perused. The ownership of the disputed premises has not been challenged. The challenge laid by the tenant to the eviction and which has been urged and argued before this Court is a twofold challenge. (a) The banafide need of the landlord has not been set up in his eviction petition; he is confused; he is not aware whether the godown is required for storage or for his residence. (b) The premises have been let out for godown; they cannot be used as a room and as such the averment of the petitioners that they need it for residential purpose will not be established. 4. Submission being that the impugned judgment decreeing the eviction petition suffers from an infirmity. The averments made in the application seeking leave to defend have been perused. They are by and large bordered on these submissions; the ground of ownership as noted supra has not been disputed. 4. Submission being that the impugned judgment decreeing the eviction petition suffers from an infirmity. The averments made in the application seeking leave to defend have been perused. They are by and large bordered on these submissions; the ground of ownership as noted supra has not been disputed. The contention before this Court is that the merchandise shop which is being run by the landlord has not described as to what is the general merchandise he is selling and how many pans, biddies and gutka are required to be stored in the disputed premises; no details have been given; it is clear that the eviction petition suffers from vagueness; pleas of the landlord have not been established. 5. The corresponding para of the reply filed by the landlord have also been perused. In this reply, the landlord has reiterated that the petitioner is doing the business of selling pan, gutka and biddies and other daily used items; his business is of general merchandise; premises had been let out to the tenant for a commercial purpose i.e. for a godown which premises are now required by the landlord himself for the storage of his goods. 6. These submissions made by the landlord have in fact not been disputed; the arguments of the tenant being that the eviction petition is vague for the reason that it has not disclosed the number of items which the landlord is going to store in the aforenoted godown. The site plan shows that the godown (which is admittedly opposite the shop from where the landlord is carrying out his business) is a godown measuring 34’X18’ feet; it is a fairly big size; the shop which is in possession of the tenant is a small shop; the size of the shop has not been described in the eviction petition. Even on a specific query put to learned counsel for the petitioner if he could disclose about the dimension of the shop, he has admitted that it is a small shop from where the landlord is carrying out his merchandise business but the measurements are not known to him either. Even on a specific query put to learned counsel for the petitioner if he could disclose about the dimension of the shop, he has admitted that it is a small shop from where the landlord is carrying out his merchandise business but the measurements are not known to him either. Be that as it may, the scenario which has emanated clearly shows that the shop from where the landlord is carrying out his business of general merchandise of Pan, gutka, biddies and other allied items is a small business premises and which is opposite the tenanted shop, he needs the present shop/godown for storage of his business merchandise; this submission is well substantiated and the submission of the tenant on this count that details of the actual merchandise which is to be stored not having been given by the landlord will not diminish his otherwise bonafide need which is for the purpose as disclosed by him in his eviction petition and reiterated in his reply. 7. In Prativa Devi (Smt.) Vs. T.V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353 it was held herein as under:- “The landlord is the best Judge of his requirement and Courts have no concern to dictate to the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. The bona fide personal need is a question of fact and should not be normally be interfered with.” 8. The application seeking leave to defend is wholly without any triable issue. Unless and until the tenant sets up a prima facie defence disclosing an issue which is triable, the Courts cannot in a routine or a mechanical manner grant leave to defend; otherwise the very purport and import of the summary procedure as contained in Section 25-B of the DRCA which has been engrafted for a special class of landlords would be defeated and this was not the intent of the legislature. If the defence raised by the tenant is merely bald, whimsical or fanciful having no basis or foundation, leave to defend may not be granted. 9. In 111 (2004) DLT 534 Shri Hari Shanker Vs. Shri Madan Mohan Gupta and 155 (2008) DLT 383 Rajender Kumar Sharma & Others Vs. Smt. Leela Wati and Others the Courts have time and again reiterated:- “The Courts cannot and should not in a mechanical or in a routine manner grant leave to defend.” 10. Petition is without any merit. In 111 (2004) DLT 534 Shri Hari Shanker Vs. Shri Madan Mohan Gupta and 155 (2008) DLT 383 Rajender Kumar Sharma & Others Vs. Smt. Leela Wati and Others the Courts have time and again reiterated:- “The Courts cannot and should not in a mechanical or in a routine manner grant leave to defend.” 10. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.