Delhi District Court
Smt. Prem Lata Verma vs Sh. Narain Dass Chawla on 20 May, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER
ACJcumARC(WEST) THC, DELHI
UID No. 02401C0236822012
E No.45/12 U/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act
Date of institution:22.05.2012
Date of Order: 20.05.2013
Smt. Prem Lata Verma
W/o Sh. Pyare Lal Verma,
R/o WZ433/B, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi ....... Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Narain Dass Chawla,
S/o Shri Tara Chand,
R/o WZ553/1, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi ......Respondent
Order deciding Leave to Defend in Eviction petition U/sec. 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25B of DRC Act, 1958
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of the application U/s 25B (4) of DRC Act of the respondent for seeking leave to defend filed on 02.07.2012.
2. The eviction petition U/sec. 14(1)(e) r.w. Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act) was filed by the petitioner against the respondent on 22.05.2012.
3. The submissions made in the petition are as under: A.That the respondent was inducted as tenant in respect of one shop no.3 measuring 16' X 9", shown in red colour in the site plan, situated on the ground floor of the property bearing No. WZ433/B Nangal Raya New Delhi (herein after called tenanted premises). E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 1 of 19 B.That the respondent is old tenant and that the tenanted premises was let out to the respondent for commercial use.
C.That the petitioner is the owner/landlady of the premises bearing no. WZ433/B, Nangal Raya, New Delhi and the said property was purchased by the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 29.09.06. D.That the rate of rent is Rs. 200/ per month excluding electricity and other charges and that the respondent used to pay the rent to the petitioner against rent receipt.
E.That the family of petitioner consists of herself, her husband, two Sons and their wives and three grandchildren.
F.That the said tenanted premises is required by the petitioner for the use and occupation for doing the business of Electronic items to be run by her son Pardeep Kumar, aged 36 years as the said son of the petitioner is unemployed and desirous to open his business and that he is dependent on the petitioner being his mother & father who is the owner of the premises in question and that it is the moral duty of the petitioner to settle him.
G.That the petitioner is not having any other reasonable and suitable accommodation except the tenanted premises and the tenanted premises is more suitable for the business as it is located in a commercial market/area.
H.That the property bearing no. WZ433/B, Nangal Raya, New Delhi having two shops at the ground floor (private shop No. 3 & 4) and also adjoining two other shops (private no.1 & 2). That private shop no.1 is E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 2 of 19 in the occupation of another tenant and private shop no.2 is in occupation of the petitioner and private shop no.3 is in occupation of the respondent and private shop no.4 is in occupation of the husband of the petitioner.
I.That the respondent is having four shops including the tenanted shop and respondent is sitting at the another shop in the premises bearing no. WZ553/1, Nangal Raya New Delhi and WZ1058, Nangal Raya, New Delhi and is running a kiryana shop and one shop is lying closed and that the tenanted premises is given to some other person namely Vijay Kumar by the respondent.
4. The respondent filed Leave to Defend along with affidavit and in the affidavit the respondent admitted the following facts:
A.That the respondent is paying rent to the husband of petitioner and that the husband of the petitioner is issuing rent receipts against the paid rent. (para (2)(f) of affidavit on page 4). The respondent also relied upon the rent receipts annexed by the petitioner in this regard and it may be noted here that the petitioner has also filed rent receipts in which petitioner Prem Lata has been shown as the landlord and the rent receipt is counter signed by the respondent. B.That the respondent is a tenant and in possession/occupation of the suit property since 1966. (para (2)(j) of affidavit on page 5)
5. The respondent in his affidavit has raised certain defenses and the same are as under:
A.That the petitioner is neither the owner of the suit shop nor is the E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 3 of 19 landlord qua the respondent. Hence, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present eviction petition and that the documents filed by the petitioner does not disclose anything as regards ownership of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises. That the sale deed filed by the petitioner in order to claim the ownership of the tenanted premises has been executed by her own husband in her favour and it is apparently a sham document which has been created for the sake of seeking eviction of the tenants and the said intention of the petitioner is clearly visible from the fact that the present petition has been filed immediately after expiry of statutory period of 5 years from the date of sale deed.
B.That the site plan filed by the petitioner is not correct. C.That petitioner has let out one shop out of four shops about six months ago to Mr. Shakir who is running his business of selling shoes from the said shop and as such it is apparent from the said act of the petitioner that the petitioner has tried to create a semblance of need for the purpose of this petition.
D.That the petitioner has deliberately concealed the material fact that her younger son namely Mr. Mohit Verma is already running a Jewelery business under the name and style of "Amar Suhaag Jewelers" from one of the four shops. Similarly, the elder son namely Mr. Pardeep Kumar is also running his jewelery business from one of the said shops under the name and style of "M/s. Paras Chandi Ghar". E.That son of the petitioner, Mr. Pradeep Kumar is living separately E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 4 of 19 with his family. Thus, the petitioner owe no responsibility of settling him.
F.That the business premises available with the petitioner and for her family are more than sufficient.
G.That the business which is being carried out by the respondent from the property in question is the sole source of income for the respondent and respondent is dependent on the income from the said business.
6. The petitioner has filed a reply to the application for Leave to Defend along with counter affidavit and in the counter affidavit she has denied the defenses taken by the respondent and has categorically denied that the elder son of the petitioner namely Pardeep Kumar is running a business from one of the shops under the name and style of 'M/s. Paras Chandi Ghar". It has been submitted by the petitioner that she is the proprietor of M/s Amar Suhag Jewelers and that his husband is the proprietor of M/s Paras Chandi Ghar.
7. Arguments were heard 12.03.2013 and 02.04.2013 on the application under consideration on behalf of both the parties. Record perused.
8. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi rent Control Act the petitioner must establish that:
i.He is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.
ii.That he requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 5 of 19 iii.That he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation
9. The scope of the section has been enlarged in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as "Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India"
AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 3148 so as to include premises let out for commercial purposes also within the scope and ambit of a petition under section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act.
10. The defences taken by respondent are discussed below and the same are as under: 1 Petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises 1.1 The respondent has contended that the petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises however at the same time the respondent has not denied the execution of sale deed dated 29.09.06 by the husband of the petitioner in her favour. The respondent has merely submitted that the said registered Sale Deed is a sham document which has been fabricated by the petitioner in order to evict tenants in the premises.
1.2 In rent control legislation, the landlord can be said to be owner, if he is entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from for and on behalf of someone else, to evict the tenant and then to retain, control, hold and use the premises for himself.
1.3 In M.M.Quasim Vs Manohar Lal Sharma (1981) 3 SCC 36 it was observed by the Apex Court that an "ownerlandlord" can seek eviction on the ground of his personal requirement is one who has a E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 6 of 19 right against the whole world to occupy the building in his own right and exclude anyone holding a title lesser than his own. 1.4 It was observed in Shanti Sharma Vs Smt Ved Prabha AIR 1987 SC 2028 that the term "owner" has to be understood in the context of the background of the law and what is contemplated in the scheme of the Act. The Act has been enacted for protection of the tenants. But, at the same time, it has provided that the landlord under certain circumstances will be entitled to eviction and bona fide requirement is one of such grounds. Ordinarily, the concept of the ownership may be absolute ownership in the land as well as of the structure standing thereon. But in the modern context, where all lands belong to the State, the persons who hold properties will only be lessees or the persons holding the land on some term from the Government or the authorities constituted by the State. The legislature, when it used the term "owner" in s. 14(1)(e), did not think of ownership as absolute ownership. The meaning of the term "owner" is visa vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant. In cases where the plot of land is taken on lease, the structure is built by the landlord and he is the owner of the structure. 1.5 In Sushil Kanta Chakravarty Vs Rajeshwar Kumar 2000 (2) RCR Rent 4 it was observed that where there was an agreement to sell and so also a power of attorney in favour of the purchaser landlord and he had been given possession by virtue of the said power of attorney, it was held that he could maintain a petition for eviction. E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 7 of 19 1.6 Coming to the facts of the present case, the respondent has himself admitted that he was a tenant under the landlordship of husband of petitioner since 1966 from which an inference can be drawn that the husband of the petitioner was the owner of the tenanted premises. The husband of the petitioner sold a portion of the property including the tenanted premises to the petitioner on 29.09.06 vide a registered Sale Deed for which proper stamp duty and other taxes were paid by the petitioner and therefore merely because there is a sale transaction between the petitioner and her husband does not mean that the said transaction is a sham transaction or a transaction without consideration. Moreover, the submission of the respondent that the petitioner has fabricated the sale deed in order to evict the tenant does not hold force because even in the absence of the sale deed the husband of the petitioner could have filed an eviction petition against the respondent for settling his son Mr. Pardeep Kumar. 1.7 As regards landlordship, the respondent has himself relied upon rent receipts filed by the petitioner and the petitioner has filed rent receipts in which earlier the husband of the petitioner was shown as landlord and later the petitioner was shown as landlord and these receipts do bear the counter signatures of the respondent. 1.8 Thus, the Court is of the opinion that the respondent has failed to raise any triable issue both as regards the ownership of the tenanted premises (in view of the registered sale deed) and as regards the landlordship of the tenanted premises (in view of the rent receipts duly E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 8 of 19 signed by the respondent and bearing the name of petitioner as landlord).
1.9 Thus, this defence raised by the respondent does not raise any triable issue.
Site plan filed by the petitioner is not correct.
2
2.1 In leave to defend, respondent has taken objection that the site plan of the tenanted premises is not correct. However, no reason has been assigned by the respondent in the application as to how the site plan filed by the petitioner is incorrect.
2.2 On the other hand, the contention of petitioner is that since respondent has not filed any contrary site plan showing the details of tenanted premises thus, the plea of the respondent as regards site plan of petitioner is vague and baseless.
2.3 In this regard, reliance can be placed on judgment titled as V. S. Sachdeva Vs. M. L. Grover, 67 (1997) DLT 737, wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under:
"if, the tenant failed to file any site plan, then the site plan filed by the landlord should be accepted"
2.5 In the absence of any contrary site plan of the respondent, plea of the respondent is rejected being bald averment without any substance. Moreover, there is no dispute between the parties as regards the tenanted premises and as regards tenancy. Rather it has been submitted by the respondent himself that he is in possession of the tenanted premises since 1966. Further it has not been stated by the E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 9 of 19 respondent in leave to defend as to how the site plan is incorrect. 2.6 An issue was also raised by the respondent that the shop no. 3 is not in his occupation and the shop number has wrongly mentioned by the petitioner. It may be noted here that the shop number as stated in the petition is not the municipal number provided to the shop by the concerned authority and as the site plan qua the location of the shop is not disputed, hence, the site plan fled by the petitioner aptly describes the property under the tenancy of the respondent. 2.7 Thus, this defence raised by the respondent does not raise any triable issue as the tenanted premises is identifiable from the site plan filed by the petitioner.
Bonafide Requirement 3 3.1 Respondent has challenged the bonafide requirement of the petitioner on the ground that Mr. Pardeep Kumar, elder son of the petitioner is already running a shop under the name & style of M/s Paras Chandi Ghar and further that about six months before the filing of application under consideration, the petitioner had let out one of the four shops to one Mr. Shakir who is running the business of selling shoes in the said shop.
3.2 The petitioner on the other hand submitted that the tenancy of Mr. Shakir is very old and that it has been indicated in the site plan that one of the four shops is occupied by another tenant. The petitioner also submitted that as the shop in the possession of Shakir is owned by her husband, therefore, the fact that the said shop has been let out E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 10 of 19 to Mr. Shakir cannot be considered in the present petition. The petitioner also submitted that she herself is the proprietor of M/s Amar Suhag Jewelers and that her husband is the proprietor of M/s Paras Chandi Ghar and in this respect the petitioner also filed on record her income tax return wherein she has been shown as proprietor of M/s Amar Suhag Jewelers and the income tax returns of her husband wherein her husband has been shown as proprietor of M/s Paras Chandi Ghar.
3.3 On the other hand, respondent has failed to file any document to show that Pardeep Kumar, elder son of the petitioner is running the shop in the name & style of M/s Paras Chandi Ghar.
3.4 By merely stating that the son of the petitioner is running a shop, the respondent cannot obtain leave to defend because if leave to defend is permitted on mere assertion than in every such case tenant would state in his leave to defend that the son of the landlord/landlady is either running a business or is employed somewhere and drawing handsome salary and thereby obtain leave to defend. However, this was not the intent of legislature while incorporating Section 25B of DRC Act as allowing leave to defends on mere assertions would frustrate the very object of Section 25B DRC Act. In this context it has been observed in para 13 of the judgment titled Inderjeet Kaur Vs Nirpal Singh 2001(1) RCR Rent 33 that ".. A leave to defend sought for cannot also be granted for mere asking or in a routine manner which will defeat the very object of the special provisions contained in E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 11 of 19 Chapter IIIA of the Act.."
3.6 It has also been observed in judgment titled as Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors. 155 (2008) DLT 383 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under:
"Section 25 B was inserted by the Legislature in Delhi Rent Control Act as a special provision for eviction of the tenants in respect of specified category of cases as provided therein. Where a landlord seeks eviction on the basis of bona fide necessity, a summary procedure is provided and tenant has to seek leave to defend disclosing such facts which disentitled the landlord from seeking eviction. Where a tenant pleads, in leave to defend preposterous prepositions and makes such averments which are palpably false and the landlord in his reply affidavit to leave to defend is able to show to the ARC that all facts stated in leave to defend, were palpably false, ARC is not precluded from considering the falsity of such facts on the basis of material placed by the landlord before it. If the tenant in its leave to defend pleads that landlord was owner of another premises with which landlord had nothing to do, mere filing of affidavit is not sufficient. The tenant has to place before the learned ARC such documents which show that the landlord was owner of that premises. If no such document is placed on record by the tenant, the learned ARC is not required to consider the ownership of the landlord of such a premises. If the leave is granted on mere assertions that landlord was owner of the premises, of which he is not, then in every case the tenant would get leave by just naming any premises with which landlord has no concern"
3.7 Thus, in absence of any supporting documents, this defence raised by the respondent does not raise any triable issue. 3.8 It has also been alleged by the respondent in the leave to defend, Pardeep Kumar, elder son of the petitioner is living separately and that the petitioner has no responsibility of settling him. However, the Court is of the different opinion in this regard. In a recent judgment it has E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 12 of 19 been observed by our own High Court that it is the moral duty of a father to help establish his son. The relevant portion of the judgment titled Pawan Kumar Vs Sant Lal R.C.Rev 303/2012 decided on 6.8.2012 by Honorable Mr Justice M.L.Mehta is as under: "16. Further, submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that Dr. Ankit was not financially dependent upon his father and so the tenanted premises could not be got vacated for his requirement, is also only noted for rejection. It is trite that the landlord is entitled to help his son, establish his business. In Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta 2011(1) RCR,(Rent) 231 (Delhi), it has been held by this Court that the children are very much dependant on the landlord for the purpose of setting up their business and such a requirement is a bonafide one. The right of the landlord for possession of his property for setting up a business for his son has been also recognized by the Apex Court in Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs. Jay Kishan Das 2009(2) RCR 455. The moral duty of a father to help establish his son was also recognized by the Apex Court in Joginder Pal Singh Vs. Naval Kishore Behal AIR 2002 SC 2256 in the following words:
"24........Keeping in view the social or socioreligious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord. If the requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the Court shall with circumspection inquire : (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close interrelation or identify nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of the first query. Applying the overlaid tests to the facts of the present case it is clear that the tenancy premises are required for the office of the landlord's son who is a chartered accountant. It is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his best to see him economically independent."
3.9 In the opinion of the court, the said judgment equally applies to a mother who is capable and willing to settle her son. E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 13 of 19 3.10 It may be noted that in Joginder Pal Singh Vs. Naval Kishore Behal AIR 2002 SC 2256 (as referred to in aforesaid judgment) the situation was similar to the present case, as in the said case before the Apex court the landlord had filed eviction petition for the office of his son who was a chartered accountant who was residing with him. Honorable Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti observed in the said judgment that such a requirement of the landlord is a genuine requirement . In the said case the Apex Court evicted the tenant from the premises for the said requirement of the landlord.
3.11 The present case is similar to the case of Joginder Singh (supra) as in the present case the tenanted premises is required by the landlord petitioner for the business of her son Pardeep Kumar, who wants to start a business of electronic items in the tenanted premises. 3.12 As regards experience for starting a business, in the judgment tiled as Ram Babu Aggarwarl v. Jay Kishan Das 2009(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 748 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under;
".......6. However, as regards the question of bonafide need, we find that the main ground for rejecting the landlord's petition for eviction was that in the petition the landlord had alleged that he required the premises for his son Giriraj who wanted to do footwear business in the premises in question. The High Court has held that since Giriraj has no experience in the footwear business and was only helping his father in the cloth business, hence there was no bonafide need. We are of the opinion that a person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business. That does not mean that his claim for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new business, and sometimes they are successful in the E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 14 of 19 new business also...." (emphasis supplied) 3.13 In the said judgment the Apex Court has observed to the extent that requirement of landlord for setting up his son who has no experience in business is a bona fide requirement. Thus, it is no defence that the petitioner's son has no experience in the business of electronic items.
3.14 Every parent wants to settle his/her children in the best possible manner and if the petitioner has found it proper to help her son to start her business at the tenanted premises, then it would not be proper for the court to interfere in such decision of the petitioner, as the petitioner is the best judge of her own requirements and that of the requirements of her family including her son.
3.15 In the judgment titled as Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary reported as AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 534 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. Reference be made to Prativa Devi Vs T.V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353. 3.16 In the judgment tiled as "Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd." AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 100 it was held:
"..The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 15 of 19 draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by Courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself...." (emphasis supplied) 3.17 Thus, this defence raised by the respondent as regards bonafide requirement does not raise any triable issue.
That the business premises available with the petitioner and for her 4 family are more than sufficient.
4.1 Respondent contended that petitioner is having sufficient commercial premises for her need and the need of her family members. However, the respondent has not referred or specified any other property except the four shops shown in the site plan filed by the petitioner herself.
4.2 The respondent has also admitted that out of four shops one shop is in his possession and one shop is in possession of the other tenant. As regards the remaining two shops, the petitioner is running her business in the name and style of M/s Amar Suhag jewelers from one shop and the husband of the petitioner is running his business in the name and style of M/s Paras Chandi Ghar in the other shop. Thus, admittedly there is no vacant commercial premises in the possession of the petitioner from which the son of the petitioner may start his business in electronic items.
4.3 It is not expected of the Court to ask the petitioner to either close her own business or to ask her husband to close his business so as to E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 16 of 19 provide space to her son to start the business of electronic items, despite being the owner of the tenanted premises in possession of the tenant/respondent.
Thus, this defence raised by the respondent is a sham defense and it does not raise any triable issue.
Tenanted 5 premises is the only accommodation available with the respondent to carry out his business and to earn his livelihood: 5.1 The respondent has taken the defence that he is doing commercial activity in the tenanted premises and that it is the only means of livelihood for the tenant.
5.2 In the opinion of the court, the said defence has no relevance to the issue at hand as it is not the livelihood of the tenant which is to be looked into by the court in these proceedings, rather, the court is to look into whether the tenant has disclosed some facts which may disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession.
5.3 The fact that the tenanted premises is the only source of livelihood of respondent does not render the landlord/petitioner disentitled to eviction of respondent from the tenanted premises. There is no provision in the DRC Act to evaluate the comparative hardships and comparative need between the landlord and tenant for deciding eviction petition. (Harbhajan Dass Vs Tilak Raj Mehta 1980 RCJ 780 Delhi) 5.4 Thus, this defence raised by the respondent does not raise any E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 17 of 19 triable issue.
Conclusion
11. It is well settled that leave to defend is granted to the tenant in case any triable issue is raised by him, which can be adjudicated by consideration of additional evidence. The mere existence of any triable issue is not sufficient. The nature of the triable issue raised by the tenant must be such that it will disentitle the landlord from obtaining the eviction order.
12. In the judgment titled as Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash 167 (2010) DLT 80 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referring to the judgment of Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778 observed in para 17 as under:
"..It was held that the legislative intent is of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of tenant filed on the ground of requirement by the landlord of the premises for his own occupation; a special category of landlords requiring the premises for their own use has been created; if there is any breach by the landlord, the tenant is given a right of restoration of possession; the landlord who evicts a tenant on the ground of own requirement is not only prohibited from letting out the premises or disposing of the same but also required to use the same for his own residence only. It was held that these restrictions and conditions inculcate in built strong presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine; the conditions and restrictions imposed on the landlord make it virtually improbable for the landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of tenant unless his need is bona fide no unscrupulous landlord in all probability, under this Section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the onerous conditions imposed on him. It was further held that this inbuilt protection in the Act for the tenants implies that whenever the landlord would approach the court his requirement shall be presumed to be genuine and bona fide. It was further held that a heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove that the requirement is not genuine.." (emphasis supplied)
13. The whole purpose and import of summary procedure under Section E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 18 of 19 25B of the Act would otherwise be defeated. The prayer for leave to contest should be granted to the tenant only where a prima facie case has been disclosed by him. In the absence of the tenant having disclosed a prima facie case i.e. such facts which disentitles the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction, the Court cannot mechanically and in routine manner grant leave to defend.
14. In the light of the aforesaid legal proposition, all the pleas taken by the respondent have failed to raise any triable issues. The contents of the application for leave to defend have failed to rebut the presumption of bonafide qua the requirement of the petitioner. The application for leave to defend filed by the respondent is thus rejected.
15. As a consequence thereof, an eviction order is passed U/s. 14 (1)
(e), DRC Act against the respondent regarding the tenanted premises i.e. one shop measuring 16' X 9" situated on the ground floor of the property bearing No. WZ433/B Nangal Raya New Delhi as shown in red in the site plan filed by the petitioner.
16. However in light of Section 14 (7) DRCA, the aforesaid eviction order shall not be executable for a period of six months from today.
17.The parties are left to bear their own costs.
18.File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court th on this 20 of May 2013 (Saurabh Partap Singh Laler) ACJ/ARC(West)/20.05.2013 E.No. 45/12 Smt. Prem Lata Verma Vs. Sh. Narain Dass Chawla Page no. 19 of 19