Delhi District Court
Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma on 8 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM A. BAMBA
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
RCT No. 27/17
Vinod Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Singh
Address CB384/44,
Indira Market,
Ring Road, Naraina,
New Delhi - 110028. .............. Appellant
Versus
1.Vinay Kumar Verma
S/o Late Sh. Ajit Singh
R/o WZ12, Naraina Village,
New Delhi - 110028.
2. Mrs. Sunita (L.Rs. of late Devender Singh)
W/o Sh. Manoj
3. Mrs. Suman (L.Rs. of late Devender Singh)
W/o Sh. Anil
4. Mrs. Manju (L.Rs. of late Devender Singh)
W/o Sh. Sachin
5. Mr. Manoj (L.Rs. of late Devender Singh)
S/o late Sh. Devender Singh
6. Mrs. Omwati (L.Rs. of late Devender Singh)
W/o late Sh. Devender Singh
All R/o WZ13, Naraina Village,
New Delhi - 110028. ...........Respondents
RCT No.27/17 Page No.1 of 23
Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 38(2) OF
THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT,1958
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
16.11.2017 OF MS.NAMRITA
AGGARWAL, LD.SCJCUMRC,NEW
DELHI.
Date of filing of appeal : 01.12.2017
Arguments concluded on : 04.05.2019
Date of judgment : 08.05.2019
J U D G M E N T : 1.0 Vide this appeal under Section 38(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("DRC Act" in short), the appellant has challenged the order dated 16.11.2017 vide which the appellant's application under section 37 (2) DRC Act for amendment to their leave to defend, was dismissed.
2.0 Briefly stating, the facts as per appeal are that :
i) the respondent no. 1 and predecessor in interest (Late Sh. Devender Singh) of the respondents no.2 to 6 filed petition u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC Act bearing E. No. 32/2016 for eviction of the appellant from the premises bearing no.
CB384/44, Indira Market, Ring Road, Naraina, New RCT No.27/17 Page No.2 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
Delhi - 110028 ("Suit Property" in short), pleading bonafide requirement. It is submitted by the respondents in the eviction petition that the respondent no.1 is married and has one child. Respondent no.1's wife is qualified BE(Electrical) and is totally dependent upon him. Being well qualified, she wishes to start electrical consultancy business to augment the income in view of inflationary family expenses; the respondent no.1 would support her in the said business from the suit property. Even the tenanted/suit property did not suffice for that purpose and therefore, the suitable action is being taken for eviction of the adjacent premises under the tenancy of Ms.Neeta Katyal wife of Late Sh.Vijay Katyal bearing No.CB 284/43;
ii) after the receipt of the summons, the appellant herein had filed an application for leave to defend before the Ld. Trial Court,which is pending disposal;
iii) after filing of the leave to defend application, the appellant came to know that a Notification dated RCT No.27/17 Page No.3 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
24.10.1961 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued for acquisition of land measuring 16000 acres situated in the Cantonment area,Village Naraina including the Khasra No. 1066 in which the suit property is situated. The Writ Petition No. 946/69 filed against acquisition of land by Sh. Ram Narain, Mahender Singh and Sh. Shiv Ram, the forefathers of the respondents herein, was also dismissed vide order dated 18.12.1975. Thus, the land stood acquired vide Award No. 1209/6162. The forefathers even applied for enhancement of compensation vide LAC Petition No.59/2009/64 and the same was allowed vide order dated 09.11.2012 and the compensation was enhanced. But these facts were not disclosed by the respondents in their eviction petition;
iv) further, the respondent no. 1 and Sh. Devender Singh, now deceased, had filed number of petitions of eviction u/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, concealing that they are having other commercial units in other Khasra Numbers which can fulfill their needs and requirement. These facts have come to the knowledge of the appellant herein, after filing of the leave to defend application, from the Writ RCT No.27/17 Page No.4 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
Petition filed by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi;
v) but the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the appellant's application without appreciating the above facts and the subsequent events which have come into the knowledge of the appellant.
3.0 The appellant has challenged the impugned order mainly on the grounds that:
(i) that the impugned order is perverse and bad in law as the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts and documents available on record;
(ii) the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that it was the duty of the respondents to disclose about the acquisition of land on which, the property in question is situated and about the Writ Petitions filed by them but they intentionally concealed those facts;
(iii) the said facts had come into the knowledge of the appellant when the respondent no. 1 had deposed RCT No.27/17 Page No.5 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
regarding the other commercial hub in the other Khasra Number in the another case titled as Vinay Kumar Verma Vs Indira Devi, which is also pending disposal.
4.0 Vide its reply, the respondents have sought dismissal of the appeal pleading that no question of law has been raised and the appeal is abuse of process of law. Even otherwise, it is devoid of any merit. It is submitted that the facts sought to be added by way of amendment were well within the knowledge of the appellants at the time of filing of leave to defend. The Hon'ble High Court in Punjab Stainless Stell House Vs Sangeeta Kedia, C.M. (M) No. 1354/2011 and C.M. No. 20995/2011 decided on 01.09.2014, had laid down that no event which existed at the time of filing of leave to defend application can be added later on. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh Vs Satpal Singh (Dead) through LRs, (2010) 2 SCC 15 .
4.1 It is further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in Agya Ram Arora Vs Surjeet Mech. Tools, (2015) 220 DLT 245, held that in case the possession of land is not taken over after notifications under Sections 4 & 6 Land Acquisition Act, the RCT No.27/17 Page No.6 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
ownership remains with the person, whose land has been acquired. Thus, the order of the Ld. Trial Court is a reasoned order and the same does not suffer from any error. It is further submitted that the tenant/appellant cannot challenge the ownership of its landlord under the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.
5.0 I have duly considered the submissions made by Sh.J.K.Dhingra, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Jessica Jacob, Ld.Counsel for the respondent and have perused the record carefully.
6.0 Trial court record shows that vide his application u/S 37 (2) DRC for amendment of leave to defend application, the appellant sought to bring on record, the fact that the land measuring 16000 acres situated in the Cantonment area,Village Naraina including the Khasra No. 1066 in which the suit property is situated, stands acquired. It was pleaded that in view of acquisition of land, the respondents ceased to be the owners of the suit property. Therefore, they cannot seek any relief u/S 14(1)(e) DRC Act. It is pleaded that bringing of this fact on record, is essential as it would disentitle the respondents from taking an order of eviction, as prayed. It is contended that although, this is an event which existed prior to filing of the leave to defend application, same was not in their knowledge and was revealed only RCT No.27/17 Page No.7 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
subsequently.
6.1 It is seen that vide his application for amendment, the appellant herein also sought to bring on record, "subsequent events", which has come to his knowledge. That is, the respondents have filed number of eviction petitions on the ground of bona fide requirement giving details of seven eviction petitions in para no.4 of their application, stating that one of the said eviction petitions has even been allowed by the Dwarka court.
6.2 The appellant's application was contested by the respondents herein.
6.3 It is seen that the Ld.Trial Court after considering the submissions of both the sides,dismissed the appellant's application vide order dated 16.11.2017 under challenge in this appeal. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:
"16.11.2017 Present: Ld. counsel for petitioners.
Ld. counsel for respondent.
.....
An application under section 37 (2) of DRC Act for amendment in the pleading i.e. leave to defend filed by the respondent. It is averred by Ld. counsel for the respondent that he wants to place on record the award dt. 18.12.2015 in writ petition RCT No.27/17 Page No.8 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
bearing no. 946/69 and also certified copy of award dt. 09.11.2012. The respondent also wants to add the details of other eviction petition pending between the petitioners and respondent which were all filed in the year 2015 or in early 2016. It is averred by Ld. Counsel for respondent that since petitioner has not averred these facts in his petition, therefore he came to know about them later on and therefore, wants to add these facts in his leave to defend application.
Per contra, it is stated by Ld. counsel for petitioners that all these events related to the time period prior to the filing of leave to defend application and therefore, these facts ought to have been incorporated by respondent in his leave to defend application and not by way of subsequent application.
I have heard the contentions of both the parties and gone through the records.
Perusal of record shows that all the documents or event sought to be added by respondent in leave to defend application pertains to the time period prior to filing of leave to defend application. Thus the respondent was at liberty to incorporate all these facts in leave to defend application as none of them are subsequent events which have taken place after the filing of leave to defend application. Reliance in this regard is placed on Prithipal Singh Vs Satpal Singh (I) (2010) SLT 116 of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that only those facts can be added by way of subsequent events which took place after the filing of leave to defend application. Thus since these events are not subsequent events, therefore, respondent cannot be allowed to amend the leave to defend application and add these events in his leave to defend application. The statutory time period for filing leave to defend application is 15 days, which is sacrosanct and the same cannot be dissolved in any manner whatsoever. The application of respondent under section 37 (2) DRC is thus dismissed as rejected.
Now to come up for arguments on leave to defend application on 08.12.2017.
(Namrita Aggarwal) SCJCUMRC : New Delhi 16.11.2017"RCT No.27/17 Page No.9 of 23
Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
6.4 It may be mentioned at the outset that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh's case(Supra) discussed in detail, the scheme of the Act, Summary Procedure provided in Chapter IIIA DRC Act interalia for trial/disposal of application for eviction on the ground of bonafide need, as provided under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act. After discussing the objective behind providing Summary Procedure, the Hon'ble court held that: "27......There is no such thing as any inherent power of court to condone delay in filing a proceedings before Court/Authority concerned, unless the law warrants and permits it, since it has a tendency to alter the rights accrued to one or the other partly under the statute concerned."
6.5 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Punjab Stainless Stell House's case(Supra), dealt with the similar situation as in the instant appeal i.e. the Ld.ARC had dismissed the tenant's application to amend the leave to defend application. After referring to the law on the subject including the findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh's case(Supra), the Hon'ble Justice Mr.Valmiki J.Mehta observed:
"1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 07.9.2011 by which RCT No.27/17 Page No.10 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner/tenant to amend the leave to defend application.
2. At the outset, I would like to observe that the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 has held that the statutory period of 15 days for filing of the leave to defend application is inflexible and condonation of even one day is not possible for filing of the leave to defend application. Effectively, therefore the Supreme Court has observed that whatever has to be stated in the leave to defend application with respect to the facts and events which has happened prior to the 15 days period must be stated in the leave to defend application and not by subsequent affidavits and documents.
3. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Madhu Gupta vs. Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd. 184 (2011) DLT 103 has placed reliance upon the ratio of the judgment in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra) and held that no amendment should be granted to the leave to defend application because if amendment is allowed to a leave to defend application then the sanctity of the 15 days period will get destroyed. A reading of the judgment in the case of Madhu Gupta (supra), however, shows that what were sought to be added by the amendment were the facts and events which existed prior to the expiry of 15 days period and not which had come into existence subsequent to the expiry of the 15 days period.
4 (i). It is trite that what happens after the statutory period fixed for filing of the leave to defend application could surely not be stated in RCT No.27/17 Page No.11 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
the leave to defend application within 15 days because a tenant does not have a prediction machine by which he could know all facts and events in advance prior to the happening of the incidents/events which takes place after the 15 days period, and include them in advance in the leave to defend application.
(ii). Of course, I at this stage itself hasten to clarify that not each and every application for amendment to include events and facts happened after 15 days period can be entertained, but only those applications which are bonafide and which result in totally wiping out the cause of action for filing of the bonafide necessity petition can be included.
5 (i). The Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Shrivastava AIR 2001 SC 803 has referred to its various earlier judgments and held that no doubt subsequent events can be considered in a bonafide necessity petition, but, those subsequent events need 'cautious cognizance' and also that only such subsequent events which wholly satisfy the bonafide necessity should be allowed to be pleaded as subsequent events.
(ii). In Gaya Prasad's case (supra), the Supreme Court declined the prayer for taking on record the subsequent events because neither the landlord nor his son for whom the need was claimed were expected to sit idle for about 23 years of filing of the eviction petition and merely because the son had taken up a job at another place would not destroy the claim for bonafide necessity. This is so stated in para 17 of the judgment and which reads as under: RCT No.27/17 Page No.12 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
"17. Considering all the aforesaid decisions, we are of the definite view that the subsequent events pleaded and highlighted by the appellant are too insufficient to overshadow the bona fide need concurrently found by the fact finding Courts.
(iii). In Gaya Prasad's case (supra), the Supreme Court however has said that in certain cases, subsequent events should be allowed which wholly satisfy the bonafide requirement .....
14. The next threeJudge Bench of this Court, which approved and followed the above decision, in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, (1981) 3 SCC 103 : (AIR 1981 SC 1711) has taken care to emphasise that the subsequent events should have "wholly satisfied" the requirement of the party who petitioned for eviction on the ground of personal requirement of the party who petitioned for eviction on the ground of personal requirement. The relevant passage is extracted below (Para 14): "Therefore, it is now incontrovertible the where possession is sought for personal requirement it would be correct to say that the requirement pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of the action but must subsist till the final decree or an order for eviction is made. If in the meantime events have cropped up which would show that the landlord's requirement is wholly satisfied then in that case his action must fail and in such a situation it is incorrect to say that as decree or order for eviction is passed against the tenant he cannot invite the court to take into consideration RCT No.27/17 Page No.13 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
subsequent events.
11. In view of the above, since the subsequent events pertain to facts which have occurred after the statutory period of 15 days for filing of the leave to defend application, and such facts will wholly satisfy the bonafide need in the facts of this particular case which have been stated in para 18(a) of the eviction petition as reproduced above, in my opinion, a leave to defend should be allowed to be amended for adding paras as stated in para nos. 5 and 11 as reproduced above. However, in order to avoid any delay in disposal of the leave to defend application, the petitioner will simply file an additional affidavit with respect to aforesaid para nos. 5 and 11 as reproduced above, within a period of 15 days from today, and the respondent/landlady will file reply to the additional affidavit in accordance with the directions which will be passed by the Additional Rent Controller. The Additional Rent Controller is however requested to expedite the disposal of the leave to defend application."
6.6 Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Agya Ram Arora's case(Supra) dealt with the similar situation as in the instant case. In that case, the tenant had filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 for amendment of its leave to defend application to incorporate the factum of acquisition of land/property in question. Ld.ARC permitted additional grounds to be added in leave to defend RCT No.27/17 Page No.14 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
application beyond statutory period of 15 days. Same was challenged by way of writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. The respondent/tenant before the Hon'ble High Court had contended that the amendment was carried out pursuant to consent order. The Hon'ble Ms.Justice Mukta Gupta observed as under:
.....5. An application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the respondent for amendment of the leave to defend application wherein the respondent sought to add further ground that the suit property had already been acquired by the Government and thus the provisions of DRC Act were not applicable as per Section 3 of the DRC Act. It was stated that Agya Ram concealed material fact that the suit property had been acquired. It was further stated that the suit property was situated at Gali No. 4, Anand Parbat Industrial Area which was known as Ramjas Estate and in the revenue record it was known as Village Shahdora, Khurd, Delhi. There were hundreds of unauthorized occupants in the property and the area falls under the slum area thus the Slum Area Improvement and Clearance Act, 1956 was applicable.....
11. It is trite law that the time for filing leave to defend application cannot be extended beyond 15 days as held in Prithipal Singh (supra) and any amendment sought which is not a subsequent event would have the effect of permitting extension of time in filing the leave to defend application. Even if the order permitting the amendment to the leave to defend application was a consent order; it is wellsettled that parties cannot consent to an order being passed which is otherwise legally impermissible.
12. Be that as it may, there is no dispute that as on date both Agya Ram and the respondent are in possession of the suit property. In Sheela Jawarlal Nagori (supra) the Supreme Court referring to RCT No.27/17 Page No.15 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) held that it enables the acquiring authority to take possession of acquired land and when that is taken it would be free from all encumbrances. Thus, as long as physical possession is not taken over, the suit for eviction of the tenant by the landlord even after passing of the award under the Land Acquisition Act was maintainable. In Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Godrej and Boyce (1988) 1 SCC 50 the Supreme Court held that Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act makes it clear beyond doubt that the title of the land vests in the Government only when possession is taken over by Government. Till that point of time the land continues to be with the original owner and he is also free to deal with the land just as he likes. It was held that under the scheme of Act neither the notification under Section 4, nor the declaration under Section 6, nor the notice under Section 9 of the Act was sufficient to divest the original owner or other person interested in the land of his rights therein. Thus, contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court the learned ARC held that a triable issue was raised in view of the award having been published."
6.7 In view of the above, it is a settled position of law that the statutory period of 15 days for filing of leave to defend application cannot be extended; and that any event which took place prior to filing of leave to defend application, cannot be allowed to be incorporated, as allowing any such addition by way of amendment would effectively amount to extending the time for filing of such leave. However, subsequent events post 15 days period may be allowed to be incorporated by way of amendment to the leave to defend application, RCT No.27/17 Page No.16 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
if such events/additional facts would result in totally wiping out the cause of action for filing of a petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide necessity.
7.0 In the light of the settled law, let me examine the facts in the instant case. Admittedly, the land including Khasra No.1066 on which the suit property is situated, was acquired vide Award No.1209/6162. That is, much prior in time to filing of the eviction petition on 19.07.2016 before the trial court. Thus, this fact cannot be allowed to be incorporated in the leave to defend application by way of amendment in view of the settled position of law as laid down in Prithipal Singh's case (Supra) and followed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Punjab Stainless Stell's case(Supra) and Agya Ram's case(Supra).
7.1 Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that this fact is a foundational fact because, pursuant to acquisition of land, the respondents ceased to be the owners; and their eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, is no more maintainable. In this respect, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the Hon'ble High Court's judgment in Agya Ram's case(Supra), the RCT No.27/17 Page No.17 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
respondents continue to be the owners and the eviction petition is very much maintainable as neither the possession of the land has been taken over by the government till date nor is any compensation received by the respondents.
7.1.1 During the course of these proceedings, Ld.Counsel for respondents placed on record, a copy of information supplied under RTI Act by the Office of SDMHQ, Delhi Cantt. vide letter dated 07.07.2009, whereby it has been informed that " kh. No.1066, 1067, 1071 is acquired vide award no.19/7576, however neither the possession of above land has been taken/handed over by the govt. nor the compensation was paid to the land owner."
7.2 It may be mentioned at the cost of repetition that in Godrej and Boyce's case(Supra),(referred to by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Agya Ram's case(Supra)), the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the title of the land vests in the Government only when possession of the same is taken over by the Government. Till that point of time, the land continues to be with the original owner and he is free to deal with the land just as he likes. Thus, suit for eviction by the respondents is very much maintainable.
RCT No.27/17 Page No.18 of 23Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
7.3 For the aforesaid reasons, the appellant cannot be allowed to amend his application for leave to defend to incorporate the factum of acquisition of land in question.
8.0 Now coming to the other fact which is sought to be added by way of amendment in the leave to defend, that is, the details of other eviction petitions filed by the respondent/s herein pleading them to be subsequent events. It is submitted that the respondents did not disclose in their eviction petition that the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 Sh.Devender Singh(now deceased)through LRs, have already filed following eviction petitions u/S 14(1)(e) DRC Act for eviction of other commercial units in other khasra numbers, which can fulfill their needs and requirements:
(i)Eviction Petition No.E32/15, titled as Vinay Kumar Verma and another vs. S.S.Shah,
(ii) Eviction Petition No.E30/15, titled as Sh.Vinay Kumar Verma & another vs. Sh.Harjeet Singh Shah, pending before the court of Sh.Amitabh Rawat, ARC, New Delhi
(iii) Eviction Petition No.E26/15, titled as Vinay Kumar Verma & another vs. Sh.Devender Singh, pending before the court of Sh.Amitabh Rawat, ARC, New Delhi
(iv) Eviction Petition No.E29/15, titled as Vinay Kumar Verma & RCT No.27/17 Page No.19 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
another vs. Sh.Anil Trehan, pending before the court of Sh.Amitabh Rawat, ARC, New Delhi.
(v) Eviction Petition No.E12/16, titled as Vinay Kumar Verma & another vs. Jagdish Arora, pending before the Ld.Trial court.
(vi) Eviction Petition No.11/16, titled as Vinay Kumar Verma & another vs. Suresh Kumar Arora, pending before the Ld.Trial court.
8.1 It is submitted that filing of the above petitions was not known to the appellant. Same came to his knowledge, after filing of leave to defend application, from the Writ Petition filed by the respondents before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
8.2 The respondents vide their reply to the appeal have stated that these facts were very much in the knowledge of the appellant herein on the day the leave to defend application was filed. Therefore, these are not subsequent events. The Ld.Trial court rightly dismissed the appellant's application for amendment.
8.3 From the details of eviction petitions as given in para no.8.0 above, it appears that five of those petitions were filed in the year 2015 i.e. prior to filing of leave to defend application. Even with respect to the remaining two petitions, which appear to have been filed RCT No.27/17 Page No.20 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
in the year 2016, it cannot be said with certainty whether those were filed subsequent to filing of leave to defend application. Be that as it may. It is noteworthy that the respondents vide their reply have not disputed the appellant's averment about filing of aforesaid eviction petitions u/S 14(1)(e) DRC Act by respondent no.1 & others. Nor have the respondents made any specific denial of the appellant's plea that one of their eviction petitions which was pending at Dwarka court, has been allowed.
8.4 Further, perusal of the trial court record shows that in their eviction petition, as against para 19, the respondents herein have stated as under: 19 Any other relevant information That the Petitioners have a large family and there are other shops which are let out to different tenants and for which separate eviction petition has been filed.
The petitioners are also filing separate eviction petition for the bonafide requirement of Petitioner No.1's wife of Premises bearing No.CB384/43 in Khasra No.1066, Naraina Ring Road, New Delhi.
8.4.1 From the above, it is evident that the respondents herein have themselves stated that they have filed eviction petitions with respect to other shops let out to other tenants but have not specified RCT No.27/17 Page No.21 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
the ground on which the eviction has been sought in those petitions. However, they have stated that they are filing an eviction petition with respect to premises no.CB384/43 in Khasra No.1066, Naraina Ring, Road, New Delhi for bonafide requirement.
8.5 In view of the above, it is clear that the respondents have not disclosed the details of eviction petitions filed by them with respect to other properties and the ground on which the eviction has been sought. However, during the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that those petitions have been filed on the ground of bonafide requirement u/S 14(1)(e) DRC Act. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has even stated that one eviction petition of the respondents with respect to another property on bonafide ground, has been allowed by Dwarka court. No specific submission in this respect has been made by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents. Needless to mention that these facts are material for an effective adjudication of the respondents' claim for eviction in their petition u/S 14(1)(e) DRC Act pending before the Ld. Trial court.
9.0 In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appellant is allowed to file the details of the eviction petitions filed by the respondents and as mentioned in para 4 of their application u/S RCT No.27/17 Page No.22 of 23 Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.
37(2) DRC Act, by way of an additional affidavit within a period of 15 days from today. The respondents shall be at liberty to file reply to the same, in accordance with the directions which may be issued by the Ld.Trial Court. Ld. Trial Court shall consider the same while disposing of the leave to defend application.
10.0 Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
11.0 Trial court record be sent back alongwith copy of this judgment.
12.0 File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by POONAM POONAM A BAMBA
A BAMBA Date: 2019.05.08
16:58:37 +0530
Announced in the open court (Poonam A. Bamba)
on 08.05.2019. District & Sessions Judge
New Delhi
RCT No.27/17 Page No.23 of 23
Vinod Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors.