Delhi District Court
Vijay Bhalla ...Non vs M/S. S.K. Seth & Sons ... on 5 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. LALIT KUMAR, CCJ-CUM-ARC, CENTRAL,
DELHI.
M-14/2012
Vijay Bhalla ...Non-applicant/petitioner
VERSUS
M/s. S.K. Seth & Sons ...Applicant/Respondent
ORDER
05.05.2012
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application filed by the applicant/respondent u/s.114 CPC for review of order dated 11.01.2012.
2. The brief facts which are relevant for the disposal of present application are that:-
The non-applicant/petitioner had filed an eviction petition under section 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act against the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement.
The applicant/respondent filed the leave to defend application which was ultimately, dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.01.2012 and eviction was passed against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises.
Aggrieved by the said eviction order dated 11.01.2012, the applicant/respondent has filed the application in hands with a prayer to review and to recall the order dated 11.01.2012.M14/2012 1/7
3. The grounds for review mentioned in the application are as follows:-
a. The petitioner has not filed the petition as per the requirement of law and has not even pleaded all the necessary facts moreover he was obliged to file all the relevant documents to support his claim of bonafide requirements.
b. The petitioner was obliged to give details of the entire accommodation in the building but he has not done so.
c. The petitioner not even pleaded that petitioner has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
d. The site plan was not filed alongwith the petition and the same has been filed lateron and hence, when he filed a plan later there ought to have been proceedings de novo.
e. Apart from lease deed dated 01.04.2009, the petitioner has not filed any document to show that he and his sons are carrying on business from 47, GB Road, Delhi.
f. The petitioner has stated that he is carrying on business from the last 40 years but he has not stated from where (namely from which premises) he was carrying business earlier to 01.04.2009. It is contended that petitioner has all along been carrying on business from those very premises in property no.47, GB Road and has been paying a nominal rent and has fabricated the so called lease deed dated 01.04.2009. It is also contented that there is no mention in the notice dated 20.07.2009 about the lease dated 01.04.2009.M14/2012 2/7
g. The petitioner has not filed a complete plan of the building no.43 GB Road to show that the whole accommodation available in said building and which of the portion is occupied by whom and which are available to him and in his possession.
h. Petitioner has concealed the fact that he instituted a proceeding for eviction of Sh.Nirmal Singh and Taranpreet Singh from the shop situated on ground floor of this very property no.43, GB Road wherein eviction order was passed on 12.07.2011 and the same had become final (as the tenant has lost up to Supreme Court) and thus the said shop having become available to him.
i. In reply to leave to defend application, the petitioner has made an entirely new assertion different from what he pleaded in his petition.
4. Counsel for petitioner choose not to file reply and straightway argue the application. He argued that there is no infirmity in the order dated 11.01.2012 and this Court after considering the whole facts and circumstances of the petition and also the objections raised by the respondent in the leave to defend application had rightly dismissed the same and passed the eviction order.
5. I have gone through the entire material available on record carefully.
6. The first ground for review is that the petitioner has not filed the petition as per the requirement of law and has not even pleaded all the necessary facts moreover he was obliged to file all the relevant documents to support his claim of bonafide requirements.
M14/2012 3/7I have seen the order dated 11.01.2012 and found that the above mentioned objection of the respondent has been duly considered in para no.10 of the said order and there is no infirmity in the same.
7. The next grounds are that the petitioner was obliged to give details of the entire accommodation in the building but he has not done so and that the petitioner has not filed a complete plan of the building no.43 GB Road to show that the whole accommodation available in said building and which of the portion is occupied by whom and which are available to him and in his possession.
I feel that it is not compulsory for the petitioner to file the entire site plan of property in question as he wants the tenanted premises which as per him is suitable to him. Moreover, it is well established proposition of law that non disclosing of entire premises in question is not fatal to the case as it is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business.
In para no.11, 12 and 13 of the order dated 11.01.2012, all the accommodations available in the property in question have been duly discussed and none found suitable or available to the petitioner.
8. It is also one of the ground that the petitioner not even pleaded that petitioner has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
This ground already raised by the respondent in the leave to defend application. The same was duly discussed and considered by this Court in para no.10 of the order dated 11.01.2012 and there is no infirmity in the same.
9. The next ground is that the site plan was not filed alongwith the M14/2012 4/7 petition and the same has been filed lateron and hence, when he filed a plan later there ought to have been proceedings de novo.
I feel that filing of site plan at the later stage would not fatal to the case as it does not effect the bonafide requirement of the petitioner.
10. It is also one of the ground that apart from lease deed dated 01.04.2009, the petitioner has not filed any document to show that he and his sons are carrying on business from 47, GB Road, Delhi.
I feel that petitioner was not under obligation to file any other document to show that he and his sons are carrying on business from 47, GB Road, Delhi. The averments made by the petitioner in this regard and lease deed which is registered too, are enough to established the same. Rather it was for the respondent to establish from where the petitioner or his sons carrying on their business by placing on record some documents in that regard. Even, he has not disclosed the particulars of premises where they are doing their business.
11. The next ground is that the petitioner has stated that he is carrying on business from the last 40 years but he has not stated from where (namely from which premises) he was carrying business earlier to 01.04.2009. I feel that non disclosing of same by the petitioner was not fatal to case being not relevant.
It is contended that petitioner has all along been carrying on business from those very premises in property no.47, GB Road and has been paying a nominal rent and has fabricated the so called lease deed dated 01.04.2009. On one hand, respondent alleged that petitioner had not filed any document to show that he is carrying business from property no. 47 and on the otherhand, he admitted that he all along been carrying on M14/2012 5/7 business from property no.47. The respondent cannot breath hot and cold in the same breath. The lease deed dated 01.04.2009 is a registered document and its validity cannot be challenged by the respondent who is mere a tenant under the petitioner.
It is also contented that there is no mention in the notice dated 20.07.2009 about the lease dated 01.04.2009. I feel that petitioner is not under obligation to mention about the lease deed 01.04.2009 in the notice dated 20.07.2009. Mere mentioning in no.4 of the notice that he and his sons themselves running their businesses from tenanted premises, is enough for him.
12. It is also contended that petitioner has concealed the fact he instituted a proceeding for eviction of Sh.Nirmal Singh and Taranpreet Singh from the shop situated on ground floor of this very property no.43, GB Road wherein eviction order was passed on 12.07.2011 and the same had become final (as the tenant has lost up to Supreme Court) and thus the said shop having become available to him.
I have seen the copy of judgment dated 12.07.2011 passed in the eviction petition filed against Sh.Nirmal Singh and Sh.Taranpreet Singh. The above mentioned tenants are in a shop on the ground floor of property no.43 while the requirement of petitioner in the petition which was disposed by this Court vide order 11.01.2012 is of basement. Therefore, the premises which is situated on the ground floor cannot said to be suitable to the petitioner as petitioner is best judge of his requirement. Moreover, till date when the eviction order was passed i.e. 11.01.2012, the petitioner has not got possession of premises which is in occupation of Sh.Nirmal Singh and Sh.Taranpreet Singh.
M14/2012 6/713. The next ground for review is that in reply to leave to defend application, the petitioner has made an entirely new assertion different from what he pleaded in his petition.
I have seen the reply to leave to defend application filed by petitioner and found that petitioner has merely explained his bonafide requirement and by that it does not mean that petitioner has made an entirely new assertion different from what he pleaded in his petition.
14. In view of above, I find no infirmity in the order dated 11.01.2012 and all the grounds for review taken by the applicant/respondent are dismissed. Hence, the application filed by the applicant/respondent u/s.114 CPC is dismissed. No costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court LALIT KUMAR
on 5th May, 2012 CCJ-cum-ARC(Central)
THC: DELHI
M14/2012 7/7