Delhi District Court
Sh. Dinesh Chand Gupta vs Sh. Anil Kumar Goel on 7 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR, CCJ-CUM-ARC (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
E-225/11
Sh. Dinesh Chand Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta
R/o House no. A-144, Hari Nagar,
Clock Tower, New Delhi -64 .......Petitioner
Vs.
Sh. Anil Kumar Goel
S/o Sh. Jagdish Prashad
C/o A-144, Shop no. 4,
Hari Nagar, Clock Tower,
New Delhi -110064 .....Respondent
Date of institution : 02.05.2011 Date on which reserved for judgment : 07.01.2013 Date of decision : 07.01.2013 Order :
Vide this order, I shall dispose off a leave to defend application filed by the respondent in a petition for bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act.
1. Arguments on application heard. It is submitted by Counsel for respondent that the petitioner has already filed a number of litigations against the respondent which have been dismissed by various courts even with exemplary costs and even this petition is also a pressure tactic. It is further submitted that the petitioner asked the respondent to increase the rent from Rs. 721/- to Rs. 3,000/-, but the respondent has shown his inability to pay the rent, due to petitioner has filed this petition for eviction of the shop. It is further submitted that even the site plan filed by the petitioner is E225/11 Dinesh Chand Gupta Vs. Anil Kumar Goel 1/4 not correct as the petitioner has not disclosed the complete accommodation available to him and even two shops in the premises are lying locked which may be utilized by the petitioner to satisfy his needs. It is further submitted that even the son of the petitioner for whose benefit shop is being evicted has no experience to run a medical shop, but now he has expired. It is further submitted that now cause of action has been extinguished after the death of son of the petitioner Sh. Sandeep Kumar and this petition is liable to be dismissed.
2. On the other hand, petitioner has opposed the submissions of the respondent and has submitted that the cause of action to file a petition for bonafide requirement is to be seen on the date of filing of petition and subsequent changes have nothing to do. It is further submitted that the petitioner wants to set up a business for his son namely Sh. Sandeep Kumar, who has now unfortunately expired, but the requirement of the petitioner was also for himself and cause of action still continues. It is further submitted that the the petitioner has no other accommodation in his possession which may be utilized as alternative to satisfy his needs and this leave to defend application is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the ground raised by the respondent are frivolous and the leave to defend is liable to be dismissed.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. Respondent has raised many issues in leave to defend application which have been stated to be triable issues. However, the main plea is as to whether the cause of action is still continue after the death of son of the petitioner for whose benefit shop is being sought to be recovered. Though the cause of action in a petition for bonafide requirement is to be seen on the date of filing of a petition, yet the same is to be seen only in those cases where the bonafide requirement is not for exclusive use of petitioner only and continue even after the death of landlord / petitioner. However in that cases where the bonafide requirement of the landlord has been extinguished during the pendency of petition is to be dealt with differently. Similar situation has been E225/11 Dinesh Chand Gupta Vs. Anil Kumar Goel 2/4 dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1985 SC 207 titled M/s. Variety Emporium V. V.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina. It has been also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 16 of the judgment as under:
"no authority is needed for the proposition that, in appropriate cases, the Court must have regard to events as they present themselves at the time when it is hearing the proceeding before it and mould the relief in the tight of those events. We may, however, draw attention to a decision of this court in Hasmat Rai V. Raghunath Prasad (1981) 3 SCR 605 : (AIR 1981 SC 1711), the ratio of which may be stated thus: When an action is brought by a landlord for the eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement the landlord's need must not only be shown to exist at the date of the suit, but it must exist on the date of the appellate decree, or the date when a higher court deals with the matter. During the progress and passage of proceeding from court to court, if subsequent events occur which, if noticed, would non-suit the landlord, the Court has to examine and evaluate those events and mould the decree accordingly. The tenant is entitled to show that the need or requirement of the landlord no more exists by pointing out such subsequent events, to the Court, including the appellate Court. In such a situation, it would be incorrect to say that as a decree or order for eviction is passed against the tenant he cannot invite the Court to take into consideration subsequent events. The tenant can be precluded from so contending only, when a decree or order for eviction has become final".
E225/11 Dinesh Chand Gupta Vs. Anil Kumar Goel 3/4 In view of this judgment, it is clear that the bonafide requirement of the landlord must not only be shown to exist at the date of the suit, but it must exist on the date of appellate decree, or the date when a higher court deals with the matter. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Court pronounced in Hasmat Rai Vs. Raghunath Prasad (1981) 3 SCR 605 and held that the subsequent event shall be taken into consideration. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.K. Verma V. Kamla Kapur, AIR 1981 SC 1630, in similar circumstances where eviction was sought to accommodate son who died during pendency of petition and no eviction was allowed. In view of these judgments, it is clear that after considering of subsequent events, if the bonafide requirement of the landlord has extinguished, then the bonafide requirement cannot be considered to exist. In the present case, the petitioner has sought recovery of possession of the tenanted shop for bonafide requirement to run / open a photocopy business in the premises in the name of his son namely Sh. Sandeep Kumar who was disable and another son was ready to provide assistance to the deceased son of the petitioner to maintain his business, but during the pendency of this petition, the son of the petitioner namely Sh. Sandeep Kumar has expired and now cause of action does not exist. As such, now this petition is not maintainable being without cause of action, hence dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Dated:- 07.01.2013 (Devender Kumar)
Announced in the open Court. CCJ-cum-ARC (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
E225/11 Dinesh Chand Gupta Vs. Anil Kumar Goel 4/4