IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RC.REV. No. 21/2010
Date of Decision: 01.04.2011
Shri Surinder Mohan Singh ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. APS Ahluwalia, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia, Adv.
Versus
Shri Balmukund ... Respondent
Through; Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the
judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Digest? Yes
S.L. BHAYANA, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner (respondent before
learned trial Court) under Section 25-B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 challenging the eviction order dated 19.09.2009 passed by
learned SCJ-cum-RC (Central) Delhi whereby the application of leave to
defend the eviction petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by
learned trial Court and eviction order was passed in favour of the
respondent/landlord.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent (petitioner before
learned trial Court) is the co-owner of the shop no. 7783, Ground Floor,
Arakashan Road, Gali No.3, Ramnagar, Paharganj, New Delhi and his
brother Yudhveer Prashad is the other co-owner. The said shop was
given on rent to the petitioner in the year 1980 at a rent of Rs. 200/-
per month. The respondent submits that the premises in question is
required by him for his bonafide need as well as need of his family
RC.REV. No. 21/2010 Page No. 1 of 5
members dependent upon him as he does not have any other
reasonably suitable accommodation for his work. Respondent further
submits that he and his brother have no shop for earning their
livelihood and their only source of income is rent from their properties
which is very meager and is not sufficient for their livelihood as rent
received by them is not more than Rs. 1000/- per month and they are
facing very difficult time. Respondent further submits that he and his
brother are not able to maintain their health due to poor income and
even their parents did not get proper medical treatment in time and
they expired due to paucity of funds. Respondent further states that
he and his brother are unmarried as they do not have any source of
income and unless there is source of income they cannot afford to get
married and if this shop is made available to them they will be able to
earn their livelihood and enable them to get married and live a good
married life. Respondent further submit that he requires the premises
in question for his bonafide use.
3. The petitioner (respondent before learned trial Court) appeared
before the trial Court and filed an application for leave to defend the
eviction petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
respondent and his brother Yudhvir Prasad are not the owners of the
property in question and they have already having sufficient
accommodation. They already have two shops in which they are
running the business of grinding spices and are earning lucrative
income from the said business. He further submitted that respondent
and his brother are having another premises bearing municipal no.
4217, Tail Mandi Chowk, Paharganj from where also they are running
the business of imparting coaching and are earning good income. Rate
of rent is also disputed and it is stated the same is Rs. 50/- per month
and not Rs. 200/- per month. It was mentioned in the leave to defend
RC.REV. No. 21/2010 Page No. 2 of 5
petition that respondent has also filed various petitions u/s 14 (1) (b)
and 14 (1) (c) of DRC Act against other tenants also. It is also
submitted that the respondent wants to evict the petitioner from the
shop and he wants to re-let the shop at a higher rate of rent. It is
further submitted by the petitioner that the respondent is earning very
good income from the business of grinding spices and imparting of
coaching. It is also submitted that the respondent has no bonafide
requirement of the tenanted property and has already got alternative
accommodation available with him and prayed that instant petition be
dismissed.
4. Reply to leave to defend was filed by the respondent in which
contents of leave to defend were denied and those of the eviction
petition were reiterated. It is submitted in the reply that the property
bearing No. 4217, Mandi Chowk Pahar Ganj, New Delhi is for residential
use where respondent and his brother are living. It is further
submitted in the reply that property bearing No. 7780, 7781, 7782,
7783, 1/3rd of 7784 and ½ of 7786 situated at Arakashan Road, Gali No.
3, Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj, are in joint ownership of the respondent and
his brother which properties are in possession of tenants and they
receive only Rs. 1000/- as rent for these properties which is insufficient
for their livelihood. It is further denied in the reply that respondent was
in possession of any shop and it is stated that respondent and his
brother are only in possession of one store room which is not sufficient
to run business and also denied other averments raised in the leave to
defend petition filed by the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel
for the parties, learned trial Court vide order dated 19.09.2009
dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner and
passed eviction order against the petitioner.
5. Arguments heard.
RC.REV. No. 21/2010 Page No. 3 of 5
6. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has
alternate accommodation available to the respondent for which he has
referred to the written statement of one Dr. Kartar Singh to the
eviction petition filed by the respondent. I have gone through written
statement filed on behalf of Dr. Kartar Singh in which it is mentioned
that the shop was vacated by Dr. Kartar Singh way back in the year
1994 and since then he has no concern with the premises in question.
This is refuted by the respondent who is present in person and he
states that the averment made in the written statement by Dr. Kartar
Singh that he has vacated the premises way back in the year 1994 is
absolutely false as the proceedings against Dr. Kartar Singh are still
pending before learned trial Court. Dr. Kartar singh never handed
over possession of the shop to them and eviction proceedings are still
pending against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not filed
any judgment passed by learned trial Court in this case. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has also not placed on record copy of
eviction petition filed by the respondent against Dr. Kartar Singh.
7. The respondent was asked to bring his counsel but he submits
that he and his brother are very poor persons and they are not in a
position to engage a counsel to argue the matter. He has further
submitted that they are getting only Rs. 1000/- as rent in respect of
other properties which have been let out to the various tenants and
those shops were let out to them several years back. Rs. 1000/- is not
sufficient to meet the day to day needs of both the brothers. He has
further submitted that they are not even medically fit and if they fall
sick Rs. 1000/- is not sufficient even to meet their medical expenses.
He further submits that if the shop is given to them they will start
some business and will be able to earn their livelihood. He further
submits that both the brothers are unmarried. They could not get
RC.REV. No. 21/2010 Page No. 4 of 5
married as they do not have any regular source of income as the shops
are in possession of the tenants and if they get this shop they will be
able to start some business and earn their livelihood and they will also
get married. He further submits that due to poor income their parents
did not get proper medical treatment in time and they expired as they
had no source of income at all.
8. Arguments heard.
9 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment
titled Rachpal Singh & Ors. Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors (V (2009) SLT
1420. The facts of the above said case are not applicable to the facts
of the present case.
10. I agree with the reasoning given by learned trial Court that the
petitioner has not been able to raise any triable issue in the application
for leave to defend filed by him. The respondent has been able to show
that his need is bonafide and genuine. I agree with the findings given
by learned trial Court wherein learned trial Court has passed the
eviction order against the petitioner on account of bonafide
requirement of the respondent.
11. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned
trial Court.
12. The petition is without any merit, the same is therefore
dismissed.
April 01, 2011 S.L. BHAYANA, J.
kb
RC.REV. No. 21/2010 Page No. 5 of 5