Delhi High Court
Subhash Chand vs Om Prakash on 4 April, 1987
Equivalent citations: 32(1987)DLT182
JUDGMENT Mahinder Narain, J.
(1) This revision petition is filed by the tenant against the order of Shri Dinesh Dayal, 4th Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 18/08/1981, whereby the Rent Controller refused to grant leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the landlord, the respondent here, under Section 14(l)(e) and Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
(2) It is not disputed that the subject matter of the tenancy is a room measuring 9" ft. X 8" ft. It is also not disputed that this room is located in houseNo. 7015, Gali Kumaharan, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi.
(3) In the application for leave to defend the tenant contended that the said room has been given to the tenant by the landlord for commercial purpose that from the very inception the tenant had been carrying on manufacturing from that room, and that he was manufacturing ''Kadchi", "Palta", "Chimta","Chaini" etc. It was also stated in the application for leave to defend that thelandlord had instituted a suit against the tenant to restrain the tenant from installing heavy machinery in the room, taken by the tenant. It was also contended that the landlord was not the owner of the premises.
(4) Along with the affidavit no document of title was filed to indicate that the landlord was not the owner of the premises. I do not think it would be proper that leave is granted to a tenant to defend the eviction petition on the mere assertion that the person who has instituted the proceedings for eviction, is not the owner. By itself, it would not raise any friable issue. The Registration Act1908 which is in force in India, requires that transfer of title in property valued at more than Rs. 100.00 should be compulsory registered. Any person can obtain copy of a registered title deed which is registered as a document of title before the Registrar of Assurances. Prima facie, it would be necessary when the title is disputed, to produce the title deed which discloses the fact that the petitioner is not the owner, and the ownership is lying with somebody else. In the absence of such a document, I am not prepared to say that the assertion in the grounds to leave to defend that the petitioner is not the owner of the property,is sufficient by itself to grant permission to leave to defend the evictionpetition.
(5) Delhi is an old city. All the "galis" and "koochas" in this city are known to be residential areas. The commercial areas in the old city are the Bazars and "Katras". It cannot be presumed that in residential areas premises would be given for commercial or manufacturing purposes. In the in slant case,the landlord has asserted that the premises was residential. It was asserted in the petition that the premises are being "misused now for commercial purposes also in addition to residential use." The petitioner did not produce along with the application for leave to defend any certificate or license from the authorities concerned about permission being granted to him to carry on manufacturingactivities. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act would require such a license.No license has been produced. It is a mere assertion in the grounds for leave to defend that commercial activities are being carried out.
(6) Besides this. the premises which has been let, is 9" ft. X 8" ft. This is located in a residential area. It is hardly suitable for carrying out "manufacturing activities", excepting in a very minor way, and practically as a side-line.In any case no place which is 9" ft.X 8" ft. can be termed as a "factory" or commercial space, especially when located in a "gali", which as stated above, isa residential area.
(7) I agree with the view expressed by the Additional Rent Controller that the application for leave to defend and the affidavit do not disclose the facts which, if proved, would be sufficient to entitle him to defend. It was stated by the Supreme Court in the case Precision Steel Engg. v. PremdevNiranjadcv, 1982 Rajdhani Law Reporter S.C. 781, that if the affidavit disclose facts which would be sufficient to grant leave, leave should be granted. The affidavit in the instant case, in my view does not disclose such facts.
(8) This revision petition, therefore, fails, and the same is dismissed. Ihowever, make no order as to costs.
(9) At the oral request of the counsel, three months' time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises from today.