Delhi High Court
Sh. Rameshwar Dayal vs Saroj Bala Rathore & Ors. on 31 August, 2015
Author: V.K. Shali
Bench: V.K. Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. REV. 458/2015
Decided on: 31st August, 2015
SH. RAMESHWAR DAYAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.P Katiyar, Advocate with
Mr. Puneet Verma, Advocate
versus
SAROJ BALA RATHORE & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K SHALI J.(ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant
against the eviction order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the learned
Additional Rent Controller (ARC), East District, North-West,
Rohini, Delhi by virtue of which the Ld. ARC dismissed the
petitioner's application for leave to defend and passed the order of
eviction.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent is the
landlady of the shop on the ground floor forming part of the
property bearing no. 1089/71, Deva Ram Park, Tri Nagar, Delhi-
Rec. Rev. No.458/2015 Page 1 of 12
110035 and the same was let out to the petitioner on a monthly rent
of Rs. 500/- (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted premise). The
respondent on 13.09.2013 filed an eviction petition u/s 14(1)(e)
read with S.25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the
petitioner/ revisionist herein on the grounds that the tenanted
premises are required for the settlement of his son Rahul Rathore
who has taken admission in a post graduate diploma in finance and
on completion thereof intends to run his business from the
aforesaid tenanted premises, there being no other suitable
accommodation.
3. The Ld. ARC vide order dated 29.06.2015 dismissed the
petitioners application seeking leave to defend and passed an order
of eviction in favor of the respondent herein. Leading to the present
revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist has argued that
the word 'bonafide requirement" of the landlord cannot by any
stretch of imagination include a mere design or desire to a start
business. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments of the
Honorable Apex Court in cases titled Inderjeet Kaur vs Nirpal
Rec. Rev. No.458/2015 Page 2 of 12
Singh (2001)1SCC706 and Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal (2001) 5
SCC 705.
5. It has been averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
learned ARC erred by accepting the bare assertions made by the
respondent / landlord to the effect that except two shops, all shops
are residential rooms because they have ordinary wooden doors. It
is argued that Ld. ARC failed to consider that none of the shop
bearing nos. 3,4,5,6 and 7 have any water tap, attached kitchen and
bath room without which they cannot be used for residential
purpose.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that during the
pendency of proceedings before the Ld. ARC, the
respondent/landlord let out the shop no. 4 as joint-tenancy to one
Ranjit and Raman on 24.07.2014 for the business of silver polish
on utensils. When the same was brought to the notice of the Ld.
ARC the respondent/landlady got the said shop no. 4 vacated. It
has been further stated that shop. No. 3 and 4 are lying vacant and
on the basis of the aforesaid the respondent's plea of paucity of any
other suitable accommodation could not have been accepted.
Rec. Rev. No.458/2015 Page 3 of 12
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has averred that while
dealing with an application for leave to defend the Ld. ARC ought
to have confined himself to the affidavit of the revisionist/tenant
while examining whether triable issues are made out. At the stage
of filing of the said application the revisionist/tenant is only
required to show that prima facie sufficient grounds are made out
and he need not prove every averment made in the application
which shall be done once the application is allowed. Reliance in
this regard is placed on the judgments rendered by the Apex Court
in case titled Liaq Ahmed & Ors. Vs. Habeeb-Ur-Rehman IV
(2000) SLT 148 and Charan Dass Duggal vs. Brahma Nand (1983)
1 SCC 301.
8. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused
the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel and the impugned
order.
9. From the perusal of the provision itself it is evident that the S.14
(1) (e) of the Act, was not intended to be against the requirement of
a bona-fide landlord or to act in any way as an anti-landlord
provision but was designed to protect the interest of the tenant that
Rec. Rev. No.458/2015 Page 4 of 12
is to provide him with a safety net in case an eviction was sought
either out of sheer mischief or in hope of higher monetary gains.
The tenancy law does not envisage or confer a better right than the
landlord, on the tenant with respect to the bona fide enjoyment of
the tenanted premises. The same is reflected from the judgment of
this court in Punjab State Co-operative Supply And Marketing
Federation Limited vs. Amit Goel and Another 204 (2013) DLT 63
wherein it was held that "the law is settled that unless shown to the
contrary, the presumption would be in favor of the landlord's
need". In light of the aforesaid it is incorrect to say in the present
matter that the requirement of the landlady to settle her son is not
bonafide merely because it has been inferred to be a mere design
by the revisionist/tenant on the grounds that the qualification of the
son is limited to a B.Com. degree and a distance mode diploma in
finance and that the son is already employed with a firm. There are
no two doubts about the law laid down in Deena Nath's case
(supra) but on the same note the revisionist/tenant failed to place
on record any details with respect to the alleged employment of
Rec. Rev. No.458/2015 Page 5 of 12
Rahul Rathore and therefore in agreement with the Ld. ARC the
same appears to be a bald allegation.
10. It is the case of the respondent/landlady that there are only two
shops on the ground floor out of which one is in possession of the
petitioner/tenant and other is in possession of Mohan Singh
Rathore whilst the other portion which is alleged to be shops by the
revisionist/tenant is in fact residential premise with wooden doors
and cannot be used for commercial activity.
11. Before proceeding further it is pertinent here to reproduce the
relevant paragraphs of the impugned order and the same reads as
follows:
"20. That with respect to remaining portion on the
ground floor, the respondent has filed on record the
photographs which are perused. All the said rooms
have normal wooden doors which are lying closed. On
the other hand, the shop no. 2 as well as that of
demised premises have the iron shutters installed on
it. The said photographs itself destroys the case of the
respondent that remaining rooms are shops. Rather
the last shop on the extreme right portion has a latrine
attached to it which again corroborates the contention
of petitioners that it is residential room only. Further
the said shop has no entry from the main road or from
gali no. 73 apart from the main gallery of the entire
house which destroys the argument of the respondent
that it is a shop.
Rec. Rev. No.458/2015 Page 6 of 12
21. The respondent has also failed to disclose the
necessary particulars with respect to said shop as
claimed by him. He should have disclosed the names
of the previous tenants and the nature of business
being done by them. The respondent has named only
one tenant Sh. Mata Prasad who vacated one of the
said portion in June 2012. But, again it is not clear as
to whether he was using the same as commercial or
residential. Thus the plea of the respondent with
respect to the said vacant portion is not supported by
any material on record and rather it appears that the
said portion is residential only. The petitioners cannot
be forced to convert the same as commercial as same
would amount to dictating the terms to the landlord.
Thus no triable issue is raised on the said aspect. The
reliance placed by respondent upon the judgments
titled as Rampat Vs. Ganga Devi cited as 217 (2015)
DLT 568 and G.S. Sachdeva Vs. G.S. Puri 207 (2014)
DLT 641 is misplaced being differentiable on facts.
22. Further the other grounds which have been raised
by the respondent in his leave to defend are not
supported by any material on record but are bald
assertions only. In this regard the Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi in Krishan Kumar Gupta vs. Swadesh
Bhushan Gupta 2008 152 DLT 556 is relevant. The
relevant paragraph is reproduced herein under for the
sake of convenience:
"All sorts of objections are generally
raised whenever an eviction petition is
filed by the landlord. Even the ownership
of the landlord, the relationship of the
landlord tenant, the purpose of letting and
bonafide requirement are denied by the
tenant and fake allegations are made that
the landlord has other properties. Many
Rec. Rev. No.458/2015 Page 7 of 12
allegations are raised only for the sake of
raising. Unless, the learned ARC
scrutinizes each of the objections raised by
the tenant with the help of documents and
the material placed on record, the entire
purpose of providing summary proceedings
in respect of the eviction proceedings fails.
Thus, it is incumbent upon the ARC to
scrutinize all objections carefully in the
light of law laid down and in the light of
the material placed on record. It cannot be
argued that the learned ARC was not
required to go into the details of the
objections and come to a conclusion on the
basis of affidavits and once objections are
raised leave to defend must be granted.
Leave to defend can be granted only in
those cases where the tenant is able to
show by material on record that the
petition was filed by the landlord
malafidely. The facts stated by him about
his age, family accommodation were
false."
23. Lastly, it was argued that during the course of the
pendency of the present petition the petitioners have
let out the shop on the ground floor measuring 20.8 X
8.7 to tenants namely Raman and Ranjeet at monthly
rent of Rs. 6,000/. They are manufacturing silver
utensils etc. The said fact was brought on record
through application under Section 151 CPC which
has been filed on 27.08.2014. Admittedly, the said
application was filed beyond the stipulated period of
15 days of filing the leave to defend application. Thus
legally the said additional facts pleaded in the
application under Section 151 CPC cannot be
considered in view of the specific procedure under
Rec. Rev. No.458/2015 Page 8 of 12
Section 25 B of the DRC Act. But, even then the said
contention is bald assertion only. The petitioners have
claimed that both the said tenants were inducted for
residential purpose only. The photographs placed on
record by the respondent also does not support his
argument. The mere presence of one weighing scale, it
cannot be believed that it is being used as commercial
space. As per the respondent only they are using the
same for manufacturing silver utensils. But, no other
instrument for manufacturing is seen in the said
photographs which rebuts the arguments of the
respondent."
12. As is reflected from the analysis of the aforesaid, it is evident by
the learned ARC has carefully analyzed the documents and
photographs placed on record by the revisionist/tenant. It has been
recorded by the Ld. ARC that the portion alleged to be shops by
the revisionist/tenant does not have any iron shutters whilst the two
shops which have been admitted to be shops by the
respondent/landlady and the revisionist/tenant both have iron
shutters which corroborates the story that the same is residential.
No information as to the history of the use of the said portion
alleged to be shops has been placed on record by the
revisionist/tenant. With respect to the shop/portion that the learned
counsel for the petitioner has alleged to have been vacated in June,
Rec. Rev. No.458/2015 Page 9 of 12
2012 and is stated to be presently not occupied or in use, has been
recorded to have been let out for residential purpose only and in the
absence of any material facts to the contrary brought on record by
the tenant the same seems to be a plausible conclusion. With
respect to the joint tenancy the Ld ARC has observed that the mere
presence of one weighing scale cannot establish that the premise is
being used for the purpose of commercial activity.
13. It is pertinent to note here that the revisionist/tenant could have
filed the municipal records or provided material facts with respect
to the prior use of the alleged shops as to whether the same was
residential or commercial to establish his case. The
revisionist/tenant miserably failed to establish his story and the
photographs filed by him before the Ld. ARC seem to be
destructive of his own case.
14. The shop which is under the occupation of the petitioner in respect
of which the respondent-landlady is expressing her desire to use for
the settlement of her son is on the front road in which the main
commercial activity is carried out and in the absence of any other
suitable commercial premise it is best suited for the purpose. The
Rec. Rev. No.458/2015 Page 10 of 12
Court has rightly observed that the tenant cannot dictate his terms
to the landlord as to how he is to use his accommodation unless
and until there is grossly unjustified demand made by the landlord.
15. I have considered carefully this aspect of the matter and fully agree
with the analysis of the evidence done by the learned ARC.
16. No other point has been raised though I have gone through the
entire impugned order running into 20 pages where a decree of
eviction is passed on the ground of bona fide requirement. I do not
find that there is any jurisdictional error, infirmity or impropriety in
rejecting the leave to defend of the petitioner by the learned ARC
and therefore, this Court is not required to interfere with the said
order.
17. The court under S.25-B of the Act does not sit in appeal over the
findings of the Ld. ARC. Reliance in this regard is placed on the
judgment of the Honorable Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja vs. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 100 wherein it has been
held as under:
"The satisfaction of the High Court when perusing the
records of the case must be confined to the limited
sphere that the order of the Rent Controller is
Rec. Rev. No.458/2015 Page 11 of 12
"according to the law." In other works, the High Court
shall scrutinize the records to ascertain whether any
illegality has been committed by the Rent Controller in
passing the order under Section 25B. It is not
permissible for the High Court in that exercise to come
to a different fact finding unless the finding arrived at
by the Rent Controller on the facts is so unreasonable
that no Rent Controller should have reached such a
finding on the materials available."
18. As it flows from the aforesaid discussion and in light of the
judgment rendered in Sarla Ahuja (supra) I do not find any
perversity or material irregularity in the findings reached by the
learned ARC. The view taken in the impugned order is not only a
possible but a plausible one and does not require the interference of
this court.
19. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
20. Pending applications also stand disposed off.
V.K. SHALI, J.
AUGUST 31, 2015 AD Rec. Rev. No.458/2015 Page 12 of 12