Ram Swaroop Radhey Shyam vs Ajay Shukla on 21 July, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court

Ram Swaroop Radhey Shyam vs Ajay Shukla on 21 July, 2022

1. The order dated 16th July 2022, under challenge in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been passed by the learned Rent Controller ("the learned RC") in RC ARC 224/2019 (Ajay Shukla v. Ram Swaroop Radhey Shyam).

2. The petitioner was the respondent in the said eviction petition.

3. The impugned order rejects two applications by the petitioner, the first for placing on record certain events which allegedly took place subsequent to the filing of the application for leave to defend the eviction petition and the second to take certain additional documents on records.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 702/2022 Page 1 of 11 Signing Date:25.07.2022 17:02:07

4. RC ARC 224/2019 was instituted by the respondent against the petitioner, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises of the respondent ("the tenanted premises") under clause (e) of the Proviso to Section 14(1) (hereinafter "Section 14(1)(e)") of the DRC Act, 1958 ("the Act"). The respondent, as the petitioner in the eviction petition, claimed to be the absolute owner of a shop situated on the ground floor of property 236-E, Shukla Market, Anaj Mandi, Shahdara, in which the petitioner was the tenant.

5. The respondent was earlier working in the Punjab National Bank and, consequent to his retirement, expressed his need to start as independent business, for which purpose the respondent claimed that the shop on the ground floor of the tenanted premises, in occupation of the petitioner, were required by him. The eviction petition also set out the details of other shops owned by the respondent or his family members, in the tenanted premises, which, owing to their having been earlier sold out or in occupation by tenants who could not be evicted therefrom, were not available for occupation by the respondent.

6. Consequent to issuance of notice in the eviction petition, the petitioner applied for leave to defend the eviction petition. Arguments on the application for leave to defend were heard by the learned RC on 17th November, 2021, and the application was reserved for orders on 2nd December, 2021.

7. After the application of the petitioner for leave to defend was thus reserved for orders by the learned RC, the petitioner filed two Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 702/2022 Page 2 of 11 Signing Date:25.07.2022 17:02:07 applications, which stand dismissed by the impugned order dated 16 th July 2022.

8. The first application was for placing certain subsequent events which, according to the petitioner, were subsequent to filing of the eviction petition, on record. Paras 4 and 5 of the said application may be reproduced thus:

"4. After the hearing of the arguments on the leave to defend application the Petitioner has gotten occupation of the premises on the Ist floor which is a huge Shop measuring approx. 300-350 sq. feet. This shop on the P1 floor was earlier rented to Mr. Shrawan Kumar and the Petitioner has gotten vacant possession from Shri Shrawan Kumar. Shri Shrawan Kumar has also removed his board from the premises that showed "Royal Kitchen Appliances". The photo showing the board of "Royal Kitchen Appliances" in the year 2019 has been placed by the respondent on the records of this cause on 4.6.2019. The new tenant has been inducted after 17.11.2021 and is still to put up his own name board. Photograph Annexure SE-1 shows the board of "Royal Kitchen Appliances" having been removed and Photograph Annexure SE-2 shows the new goods of the new tenant being displaced and sold inside shop at 1st Floor, it is thus evident that huge and prime alternative suitable commercial accommodation has been re-let out by the Petitioner after-getting vacant possession from the earlier tenant and this act of the Petitioner demolishes the projected bonafide need.

5. The Petitioner is also guilty of having renewed the tenancy of Shri Naveen Pal recently last week. The Shop 236- N in possession of Shri Naveen Pal measures around 70-80 sq. feet and is also very suitable alternative commercial accommodation. If the projected bonafide need would have been real, the Petitioner could have easily used this Shop. Pertinently, this Shop lies immediately in the corridor next to the main road and is at much more prime location that the suit premises, which lies at the end of the corridor and in a corner, overshadowed by the goods of the shopkeepers whose shops lie in between and who use the corridor for display of their Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 702/2022 Page 3 of 11 Signing Date:25.07.2022 17:02:07 goods. The Petitioner could also have used this shop and the 151 floor shop and could thus have gotten more than 400-420 sq. feet prime commercial accommodation. The re-letting of these premises by the Petitioner after the hearing of the leave to defend application by this Hon'ble Court renders the bona fide need to be malafide and infructuous."

9. Contending that the facts referred to in the afore-extracted paras 4 and 5 from the application, if taken on record, could entitle the petitioner to a defence against the respondent's eviction petition, the petitioner sought that he be permitted to place the said subsequent events on record. Additionally, citing the judgment of this Court in Punjab Stainless Steel House & Anr. v. Sangeeta Kedia1, the petitioner prayed that these additional facts be also taken into account by the learned RC while deciding the petitioner's application for leave to defend.

10. The impugned order dated 16th July, 2022 rejects the said application. The learned RC has observed, in para 5 of the impugned order, that, in Punjab Stainless Steel House1 the High Court held that "the crucial date for deciding as to bonafides of the requirement of the landlord is the date of application for eviction, yet the subsequent events which occurred after filing of leave to defend can be considered if they are of the nature as may overshadow the bonafide need of the landlord".

11. The learned RC proceeds, thereafter, in para 6 of the impugned order to hold that to reject the petitioner's application to place 1 2014 (145) DRJ 250 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 702/2022 Page 4 of 11 Signing Date:25.07.2022 17:02:07 subsequent events on record, on the ground that (i) "the petitioner had not specified the address at the first floor of the tenanted premises, to which para 4 of his application referred, (ii) the respondent, on the other hand, had clearly stated, in his eviction petition, that the space that was required by him was on the ground floor of the tenanted premises and not at the first floor thereof (iii) the shop which was re- let out to Naveen Pal had been let out to Naveen Pal prior to filing of the eviction petition, and was only 6 sq. metre in area, both of which facts found mentioned in the eviction petition, along with the contention that the respondent was in need of larger premises on the ground floor.

12. The alleged subsequent events, which the petitioner sought to place on record by means of his application were, therefore, held not to overshadow the bonafide need of the respondent as expressed in the eviction petition. Applying the principles laid down by this Court in Punjab Stainless Steel House1, the learned RC refused the prayer to take these events on record.

13. I have heard Mr. R.K.Goyal learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent.

14. A bare reading of paras 4 and 5 of the application for taking subsequent events on record clearly justify the decision of the learned RC. Apropos the "huge shop measuring approximately 300-350 sq. ft.", of which the respondent was claimed to have obtained possession, there is nothing in para 4 of the application, which indicates that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 702/2022 Page 5 of 11 Signing Date:25.07.2022 17:02:07 date on which such possession was acquired and that it was subsequent to filing of the application for leave to defend the eviction petition.

15. No date of acquisition of the said premises finds mentioned in the said application. Mr. Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on two photographs, on which para 4 of the application also places reliance.

16. One of the photographs reflects the board of "Royal Kitchen Appliances" put up on the premises and the second shows the board having been removed. These photographs, by no stretch of imagination, can indicate that the premises had become open for occupation by the respondent after filing of the leave to defend application by the petitioner.

17. Insofar as the shop 236-N, which, according to Mr. Goyal, had been re-let to the tenant Naveen Pal after filing of the application for leave to defend, again, no date of such re-letting is forthcoming in the application. All that is said is that it was re-let to Naveen Pal "recently last week".

18. Besides, I am in agreement with learned RC in his findings that re-letting of the said shop was completely irrelevant to the case set up by the respondent in his eviction petition. The respondent had clearly stated that he was in need of area on the ground floor of the tenanted premises. The shop re-let to Naveen Pal, admittedly, measured only 6 sq. metre. The respondent had been candid, in his eviction petition, to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 702/2022 Page 6 of 11 Signing Date:25.07.2022 17:02:07 make references to these premises and submit that the premises were unsuitable for his occupation. As such, even if the premises were re-let after the filing, by the petitioner, of the leave to defend application, that factor would not in any manner overshadow the case of bonafide need, set up by the respondent in his eviction petition, so as to justify taking the said event on record, applying the principles enunciated in Punjab Stainless Steel House1.

19. No exception, therefore, can be taken to the decision of the learned RC to reject the application of the petitioner to take the aforesaid events on record.

20. The second application moved by the petitioner was predicated on the premise that the respondent had, in his eviction petition, concealed the fact of release deeds having been executed, in respect of properties no. 235 to 238 in the tenanted premises, by Ms. Nishu Shukla, Ms. Yogmaya Sharma and Mr. Vijay Gaur in favour of the respondent on 6th September, 2001 and 15th May, 2017. It is further averred, in the said application, that these properties were not disclosed by the respondent in eviction petition.

21. The learned RC has held, in para 7 of the impugned order, that, in the eviction petition filed by the respondent, it was clearly mentioned that the shops forming subject matter of aforesaid two release deeds had already been sold out by the respondent.

22. To this, the contention of Mr. Goyal is that the relinquishment Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 702/2022 Page 7 of 11 Signing Date:25.07.2022 17:02:07 deeds had been executed after the dates on which, according to the eviction petition, the aforesaid two properties had been sold. This, according to Mr. Goyal, renders the contention of the respondent, in the eviction petition, that the properties stood sold out, is highly debatable.

23. The learned RC has not deemed it appropriate to take these documents on record, on the ground that the date of execution of the aforesaid relinquishment deeds were prior to the filing of the eviction petition. As such, the said relinquishment deeds were held, by her, not to be relevant to decide the application for leave to defend.

24. Apropos these shops, the recital at (xiii) to (xvii) in the eviction petition may be reproduced thus:

"(xiii) It is submitted that in 235-238, Shukla Market, Shahdara, Delhi-110032, the shops marked at points A, B, C, D, E and F, as shown in site plan, were sold by the mother of the petitioner, uptill sky, in the year 1966-1967, since then the petitioner or his ancestors has no concern from the said shops and roof/ upper floor(s) thereof. Similarly the shop marked at point 'G', as shown in site plan was sold uptill sky on 29/01/2003, since then the petitioner or his family has no concern from the said shop and roof/upper floor(s) thereof.

The shop marked at point 'H', as shown in site plan, was sold on 08/10/2001 with roof of shoos marked at point H, I, J and '·N, uptill sky, since then the petitioner and his family has no concern from the said shop and roof/ upper floor(s) thereof. The shop marked at point I shown in site plan was sold on 10/08/2010, since then the petitioner and his family has no concern from the said shop and roof/ upper floor(s) thereof. Lastly, as the petitioner was in urgent need of money, the shop, marked at point 'J', as shown in the site plan, ·admeasuring only 6 Square meter, the petitioner was constrained to sale the said very small shop vide Sale Deed on 20/06/2017."

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 702/2022 Page 8 of 11 Signing Date:25.07.2022 17:02:07

(xiv) It is further submitted that in 235-238, Shukla Market, Shahdara, Delhi-110032, the shops marked at point L, and M, as shown in site plan, were occupied by the old tenants, who have protection accorded to them by Delhi Rent Control Act, as the rate of rent is less than Rs. 3500/- per month, since the date of letting the petitioner or his ancestors were never in actual physical possession of the said shops, and the tenants are in occupation and possession of the said shops.

(xv) That the shop marked at point K, es shown in site plan was let out to Madan Lal Davendra Kumar in the year 1963 by the father of the petitioner, which present rent is Rs. 300/- per month. The shop marked at point L, as shown in site plan was let out to Himyati Ram in the year 1964 by the father of the petitioner, which present rent is Rs. 300/per month. The shop marked at point M, as shown in site plan, was let out to Anil Kwatra in the year 2008, which present rent is Rs. 1350/- per month.

(xvi) That the very small shop which is market at point J, as shown in site Plan, admeasuring only 6 Square Meter was let out by the petitioner on 06/12/2018 @ Rs. 8,500/- per month vide Registered Rent Agreement to Sh. Naveen Pal. Even otherwise the shop at point N is miserably small of 6 Square Meter and has only 4 feet front, therefore, for present requirement of the petitioner as aforesaid, is no alternate accommodation from any stretch of imagination. As the petitioner wants to start departmental store which essentially requires area of 350-450 Square Feet.

(xii) It is further submitted that besides first floor on shops shown at point M, K and L, as shown -in" site plan, no other part of first floor, if build, of Shukla Market is owned by the petitioner. It is further submitted that first floor above shops at point M, K and L is in tenancy of Sh. Sharvan Kumar since 20/09/2013. Even otherwise, the first floor is neither commercial nor the customer comes for purchasing in the said market on first floor, hence, are not alternate suitable commercial accommodation for meeting the requirement of the said business of the petitioner."

25. Additionally, there is not a whisper of averment in the leave to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 702/2022 Page 9 of 11 Signing Date:25.07.2022 17:02:07 defend application filed by the petitioner, traversing the recitals in the afore-extracted paragraphs from the respondent's eviction petition.

26. As such, if the learned RC did not deem it appropriate to allow the taking on record of the aforesaid additional documents, after orders had been reserved on the application for leave to defend, I find no jurisdictional infirmity in the decision, as would justify interdiction, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

27. I may note, in this context, that apropos the justification for not placing the said documents on record prior to filing the application for leave to defend, all that is said in the application for placing additional documents on record is to be found in para 4 of the application, which reads thus:

"4. Recently, in January 2022, one of the relatives of the Petitioner has obliged the respondent and has provided photocopies of two release deeds which demonstrate that the Petitioner is guilty of making false statement before this Hon'ble Court. The documents are as follows:

Release deed dated 6.9.2001 executed by Ms. Nishu Shukla in favour of the Petitioner. Annexure DOC-1.

b. Release deed dated 15.5.2017 executed by Smt. Yog Maya Sharma and Smt. Vijay Gaur in favour of the Petitioner. Annexure DOC-2.""

28. This paragraph is, to say the least, is delightfully vague. It does not identify the respondent's relative who was so obliging as to provide the petitioner with the two release deeds in question. It does not disclose the date when release deeds were provided, except for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 702/2022 Page 10 of 11 Signing Date:25.07.2022 17:02:07 saying that they were provided "recently, in January, 2022".

29. There is no reason, therefore, for the Court to accept the contention of the petitioner that these documents were not in the possession of the petitioner prior to filing of the leave to defend application.

30. Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted, with vehemence, that the petitioner's applications were abuse of process of law and were an attempt to protracting the proceedings after orders were reserved on the application for leave to defend.

31. Given the aforesaid facts, prima facie, the submission is vague. I do not, however, propose to return any categorical finding on that issue as, in my view, no exception can be taken to the impugned order of the learned RC rejecting the said application.

32. This petition is accordingly dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

JULY 21, 2022 dsn Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 702/2022 Page 11 of 11 Signing Date:25.07.2022 17:02:07

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court