Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 964 (DEL)

Rajender Prasad Gupta v. Rajeev Gagerna

2014-03-20

NAJMI WAZIRI

body2014
Najmi Waziri, J. (Open Court):-- 1. This is a tenant’s petition challenging an order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, North District, Delhi, whereby an order of eviction has been passed in respect of one shop and one godown at property No. 1028, Gali Teliyan, Tilak Bazar, Behind Novelty Cinema, Delhi-110006. The respondent-landlord’s petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) was allowed. The petitioner-tenant was denied leave to defend, which he sought on the following grounds: i. That there was no bona fide need. ii. That the eviction petitioner was not absolute owner and landlord of the property; Smt. Shanti Devi was the owner of the premises and prior to her Smt. Bela Devi was the owner thereof. iii. That she had executed a will in favour of her nephews, i.e. sons of Mr. Anandi Lal. 2. Therefore, the eviction petitioner had no locus standi to file the petition. He has further argued that in any case, the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that there were other co-tenants in the property and furthermore the petition was liable to be dismissed as the tenancy was never terminated during the lifetime of the original tenant. 3. The leave to defend further contended that the eviction-petitioner had one shop vacant on the ground floor of property No. 1028, Gali Teliyan, Tilak Bazar, Behind Novelty Cinema, Delhi and one property at F-19/18, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051, which comprised of three bedrooms, one drawing-cum-dining room, two latrines, two bathrooms, two kitchens and the daughter of the petitioner was of marriageable age and, therefore, the need for her would not sustain. Thus, the eviction-petitioner would have sufficient accommodation hence, no bona fide need was made out under Section 14(1)(e) of the said Act. Thus, the eviction-petitioner would have sufficient accommodation hence, no bona fide need was made out under Section 14(1)(e) of the said Act. However, the Trial Court after considering contentions and the facts & circumstances of the case, concluded as under: “a. The next ground taken is that petitioner has not disclosed the details of his family members and their age but said ground appears to have been taken for the sake of the defence as if in the entire leave to defend application number of family members have not been denied and so far as age of daughter is concerned when it is alleged that the daughter is practicing Advocate but said factum has not been denied in the entire leave to defend application and so far as age of son is concerned, it is nowhere stated in the leave to defend application that he is infant and thus, it cannot be said that petition lacks of material particulars. b. The other ground taken is availability of other suitable accommodation at property No. F-19/18, Krishna Nagar and one vacant shop on the ground floor in property No. 1028, Gali Teliyan, Tilak Bazar as well as entire first floor of the said property and petitioner has denied the availability of the same. The Site Plan of the property at Krishna Nagar and of Tilak Bazar have been filed along with the reply to leave to defend application and in the Site Plan it is disclosed that the remaining portion of the property at Krishna Nagar is in possession of the brother of the petitioner, i.e. Mr. Sanjeev Gagerna which is shown in Green colour and the other shop at Ground floor of the property at Tilak Bazar is in possession of tenant Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, one room attached with the kitchen on first floor is in possession of Mr. Sanjeev Gagerna in terms of the Will executed by Smt. Shanti Devi and the other room on the first floor is in possession of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, one room attached with the kitchen on first floor is in possession of Mr. Sanjeev Gagerna in terms of the Will executed by Smt. Shanti Devi and the other room on the first floor is in possession of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta and the room at second floor is in possession of one Lalita Prasad and no counter Site Plan has been filed on behalf of the respondent rebutting the claim of the petitioner and in absence of any counter Site Plan, the Site Plan filed by the petitioner are deemed to be correct and from the averment in the petition, petitioner is having three rooms in his possession and petitioner’s family consists of petitioner, his wife, son and daughter and no where in the entire leave to defend application it has been denied that the petitioner’s daughter is not practicing as an Advocate and requirement is shown of her for the purpose of her professional office and in all three rooms are available and as per requirement shown two rooms are required by petitioner and his wife, one room as Pooja room, one room as guest room, one as bed room for the daughter and one as study room for the son and thus, requirement of the petitioner is shown of more accommodation for residential purpose and said requirement as well as other requirement for office of daughter and keeping in mind the requirement of the daughter for the purposes of professional office it is clear that there is no space available for running the office and thus, it is established from the record available that need of the petitioner is genuine and bonafide for the purposes of running professional office for the daughter. c. The next ground taken is that petitioner wants to convert the property in question into the market to get pecuniary benefits but said ground appears to have been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance as there is protection provided under Section 19 of the DRC Act to the tenant. d. The next ground taken is that there is no notification of any enactment amending the provision under Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act and there is only suggestion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, petition is not maintainable as the property in dispute is commercial in nature. d. The next ground taken is that there is no notification of any enactment amending the provision under Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act and there is only suggestion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, petition is not maintainable as the property in dispute is commercial in nature. It appears that said ground is taken for the sake of defence without having any substance as in Satyawati Case; Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the provision under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act has no application to the premises which are let out for commercial purposes if same is required for bona fide requirements of the landlord/owner or for his dependent and that is the law of land.” 4. The memorandum of appeal reiterates the same grounds taken in the leave to defend and counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court fell into an error on each of the grounds listed in the memorandum of appeal. He submits that the respondent was not the owner of the premises and in any case there was no bona fide need. 5. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court has taken into consideration each of the contentions raised in the leave to defend and found them to be not triable issues. The reasons for and conclusion arrived at cannot be faulted. Furthermore, simply because the daughter of a marriageable age and allegedly likely to marry would not necessary cut her ties from her maternal family nor would the requirement for her accommodation in her father’s house be lessened. Indeed, in the present times a daughter who is married-out, may like to retain her accommodation in her father’s house which forms an emotional anchor and a place for refuge for all times. In times of an unfortunate marital discord such need becomes more acute should there be such a need. Conversely her family also would want to retain a room so as to reassure her of a continued place of residence in her paternal home. A married daughter’s ties with her paternal family do not end upon her marriage. For a married daughter her parents’ home is always a refuge; an abode of reassurance and an abiding source of emotional strength and happiness. A married daughter’s ties with her paternal family do not end upon her marriage. For a married daughter her parents’ home is always a refuge; an abode of reassurance and an abiding source of emotional strength and happiness. In the present case the daughter is a practicing advocate, i.e. a qualified professional, the need is all the more acute and bona fide. This Court finds, as did the Trial Court did, that no triable issues were raised in the leave to defend. Therefore, there was no need to grant leave or set the matter for trial. The reasons and the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order are correct and call for no interference. 6. The petition and the application are accordingly dismissed as being without any merit.