Delhi District Court
M/S. Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Frontier Sales on 29 November, 2016
In the Court of Sh. Rajinder Kumar : Additional Rent Controller-02, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Common order in E-45/16, 47/16, 49/16,50/16 & 51/16
E-45/16
New No. 77334/16
In the matter of:
M/s. Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd.
2, Under Hill Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi. ................... Petitioner
VERSUS
M/s Frontier Sales,
Also known as M/S Frontier Traders,
Through its Partner
Mr. Chander Prakash
At:-
No. 12, Gatta Factory,
Wazaira, Post Office Burari, Delhi
Also At:-
Mr. Chander Prakash
S/o Mr. Pokhar Das
B-109, Gujranwala Town Part-I,
Delhi-09. .........................Respondent
Date of Institution : 02.04.2016
Date of Arguments : 19.10.2016
Date of Order : 29.11.2016
E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.1/17
In the Court of Sh. Rajinder Kumar : Additional Rent Controller-02, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Common order in E-45/16, 47/16, 49/16,50/16 & 51/16
E-47/16
New No. 77336/16
In the matter of:
M/s. Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd.
2, Under Hill Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi ................... Petitioner
VERSUS
M/s Frontier Sales,
Also known as M/S Frontier Traders,
Through its Partner
Mr. Chander Prakash
At:-
No. 12, Gatta Factory,
Wazaira, Post Office Burari, Delhi
Also At:-
Mr. Chander Prakash
S/o Mr. Pokhar Das
B-109, Gujranwala Town Part-I,
Delhi-09. .........................Respondent
Date of Institution : 02.04.2016
Date of Arguments : 19.10.2016
Date of Order : 29.11.2016
E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.2/17
In the Court of Sh. Rajinder Kumar : Additional Rent Controller-02, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Common order in E-45/16, 47/16, 49/16,50/16 & 51/16
E-49/16
New No. 77335/16
In the matter of:
M/s. Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd.
2, Under Hill Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi. ................... Petitioner
VERSUS
M/s Frontier Sales,
Also known as M/S Frontier Traders,
Through its Partner
Mr. Chander Prakash
At:-
No. 12, Gatta Factory,
Wazaira, Post Office Burari, Delhi
Also At:-
Mr. Chander Prakash
S/o Mr. Pokhar Das
B-109, Gujranwala Town Part-I,
Delhi-09. .........................Respondent
Date of Institution : 02.04.2016
Date of Arguments : 19.10.2016
Date of Order : 29.11.2016
E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.3/17
In the Court of Sh. Rajinder Kumar : Additional Rent Controller-02, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Common order in E-45/16, 47/16, 49/16,50/16 & 51/16
E-50/16
New No. 77331/16
In the matter of:
M/s. Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd.
2, Under Hill Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi. ................... Petitioner
VERSUS
M/s Frontier Sales,
Also known as M/S Frontier Traders,
Through its Partner
Mr. Chander Prakash
At:-
No. 12, Gatta Factory,
Wazaira, Post Office Burari, Delhi
Also At:-
Mr. Chander Prakash
S/o Mr. Pokhar Das
B-109, Gujranwala Town Part-I,
Delhi-09. .........................Respondent
Date of Institution : 02.04.2016
Date of Arguments : 19.10.2016
Date of Order : 29.11.2016
E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.4/17
In the Court of Sh. Rajinder Kumar : Additional Rent Controller-02, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Common order in E-45/16, 47/16, 49/16,50/16 & 51/16
E-51/16
New No. 77332/16
In the matter of:
M/s. Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd.
2, Under Hill Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi. ................... Petitioner
VERSUS
M/s Frontier Sales,
Also known as M/S Frontier Traders,
Through its Partner
Mr. Chander Prakash
At:-
No. 12, Gatta Factory,
Wazaira, Post Office Burari, Delhi
Also At:-
Mr. Chander Prakash
S/o Mr. Pokhar Das
B-109, Gujranwala Town Part-I,
Delhi-09. .........................Respondent
Date of Institution : 02.04.2016
Date of Arguments : 19.10.2016
Date of Order : 29.11.2016
E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.5/17
ORDER:
1. Vide this common order shall decide the question whether the respondent be granted leave to contest the applications under clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act 59 of 1958'') filed in the aforesaid five cases between the same parties.
2. The brief facts for the decision of the applications as per petitioner are that the petitioner a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The Mr Ranjeet Oberoi, the director of the Company has been authorized vide resolution dated 05.03.2013 to sign, verify, file and institute the petition. That the petitioner became the absolute owner of the eastern portion of the property i.e. 2, under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi vide registered sale deed 10.09.2004. That the suit premises was let out by oral agreement to the respondent for the residential purposes. That as per the master plan of NCT Delhi, the use of the suit premises is residential and the same can be used only for the residential purposes. That at the time of purchase of the suit property in the year 2004, it was in a very dilapidated condition. That the petitioner company is engaged in the business of sale and marketing business and promotion of beverages and is an agent of North-Delhi Beverages Pvt. Ltd. That in order to execute the work in terms of the service agreement the petitioner company is presently agreed 27 employees with him. That most of the employees of the company do not have residence in Delhi and also cannot afford rent, therefore, keeping in mind the hardships, in a board meeting held on 15.06.2011, it was decided by the petitioner company to provide residential facilities to its employees in the suit premises that accordingly the suit premises is required by the petitioner company for the benefit and residence of its employees. That the petitioner Company has decided to re-build the entire building and it doesn't has any other alternate accommodation which can be used for the residence of the employees.
3. By filing leave to defend application filed by respondent alongwith affidavit of Sh. Chander Prakash it is contended by him that the petition has not been E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.6/17 filed by a competent and duly authorized person. That the suit premises was let out for residential-cum-commercial use and the same is being used for the same purpose that there is no bonafide necessity as claimed in the petition that the so called employees of the petitioner are not the dependent members of the petitioner and the petition is not maintainable. That the documents filed by the petitioner are sham and manipulated to create a ground for eviction of the respondent. That the petitioner owns several other residential properties in Delhi including 1-A, Maharaja Lal Lane, Civil Lines, Delhi and at 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market and at various other places. That the petitioner has deliberately concealed the actual number of units of residential accommodation. That the petitioner has concealed and withheld vital information regarding the actual accommodation available with it at 2, Underhill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi and other places at Delhi. That there are about 102 independent units of accommodation at 2, Underhill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi which were/are being used for commercial and residential purposes and most of the units have now been got vacated from the tenants. That the petitioner has deliberately concealed the actual size, measurement and accommodation of the units. That accordingly, the applications be allowed.
4. The applications are contested by the petitioner by way of a written reply supported by affidavit of the Director of the petitioner Co. wherein, the contents of the petition are re-iterated and re-affirmed. It is also contended by the petitioner that the application for leave to contest and the affidavit whereby no tribal issues are raised and is liable to be dismissed and the petitioner is entitled to relief as claimed under section 14 (1) (e) of Act 59 of 1958.
5. To the reply of the petitioner, no rejoinder affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent despite the opportunity for the same.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record carefully.
7. Having drawn my attention on the contents of the application for leave to contest, affidavit of the respondent, affidavit of the petitioner and law laid down in Khem Chand & Ors. Vs. Arjun Jain & Ors. 202 (2013) DLT 613 and Tarun Pahwa Vs. E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.7/17 Pradeep Makin 2013 (1) CLJ 801 Del., it is contended by counsel for the respondent that the present application for eviction has been made by the petitioner not for bona fide reasons but due to malafide reasons as the petitioner do not require the premises bona fide. It is also submitted by counsel for the respondent that he has raised several triable issues in his affidavit and if the respondent is allowed to lead evidence on those issues, the petitioner shall be disentitled from recovering the possession of the premises from the respondent. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondent that the application for leave to contest be allowed.
Per-contra, having drawn my attention on the application for eviction, affidavit of the petitioner, documents filed on behalf of the petitioner in support of the application for eviction, it is submitted by Ld. counsel for the petitioner that it is the Company, who is the owner and landlord of the premises and require premises bona- fidely for the residence of its employees and has no other suitable alternate accommodation with it for its employees in Delhi and therefore, the application for eviction be allowed and the applications for leave to contest made by the respondent be dismissed.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
The present petition for eviction is under clause (e) of proviso to sub- section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 which reads as under :-
14.(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by and court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: * * *
(e) that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.8/17 other reasonably suitable residential accommodation :
Explanation. For the purpose of this clause, "premises let for residential purposes" include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes;
* * * As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India and another, 148 (2008) DLT 705 (SC) clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 is also applicable to the premises let out for purpose other than residential purpose The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nand, (1983)1 SCC 301 while dealing with the question in the matter of granting leave to contest the eviction petition filed on the ground of personal requirement, in para 5 has stated thus:-
5. What should be the approach when leave to defend is sought? There appears to be a mistaken belief that unless the tenant at that stage makes out such a strong case as would nonsuit the landlord, leave to defend cannot be granted. This approach is wholly improper. When leave to defend is sought, the tenant must make out such a prima facie case raising such pleas that a triable issue would emerge and that in our opinion should be sufficient to grant leave. The test is the test of a triable issue and not the final success in the action (see Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh). At the stage of granting the leave parties rely in support of their rival contentions on affidavits and assertions and counterassertions on affidavits may not afford such incontrovertible evidence to lead to an affirmative conclusion one way or the other.
Conceding that when possession is sought on the ground of personal requirement, an absolute need is not to be satisfied but a mere desire equally is not sufficient. It has to be something more than a mere desire. And being an enabling provision, the burden is on the landlord to establish his case affirmatively. If as it appears in this case, the landlord is staying at Pathankot, that a house is purchased, may be in the name of his sons and daughters, but there may not be an apparent need to return to Delhi in his old age, a triable issue would come into existence and that was sufficient in our opinion to grant leave to defend in this case.
In the same judgment, in para 7 it is further observed:-
7. The genesis of our procedural laws is to be traced to principles of natural justice, the principal amongst them being that no one shall suffer civil or evil or pecuniary consequence at his back without E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.9/17 giving him an adequate and effective opportunity to participate to disprove the case against him and provide his own case. Summary procedure does not clothe an authority with power to enjoy summary dismissal. Undoubtedly wholly frivolous defence may not entitle a person leave to defend. But equally a triable issue raised, enjoins a duty to grant leave. Maybe in the end the defence may fail. It is necessary to bear in mind that when leave to defend is refused the party seeking leave is denied an opportunity to test the truth of the averments of the opposite party by cross examination and rival affidavits may not furnish reliable evidence for concluding the point one way or the other. It is not for a moment suggested that leave to defend must be granted on mere asking but it is equally improper to refuse to grant leave though triable issues are raised and the controversy can be properly adjudicated after ascertainment of truth through crossexamination of witnesses who have filed their affidavits. Burden is on the landlord to prove his requirements and his assertion is required to be tested more so when it is shown that for long he is staying outside Delhi, that he has a building albeit standing in the names of his sons and daughters where he is staying and at which place he receives his normal correspondence. If in such a situation one can say that a triable issue is not raised, one is at a loss to find out where, when and in what circumstances such an issue would arise. We are, therefore, satisfied that this is a case in which triable issues were raised and both the learned Rent Controller and the High Court were in error in refusing to grant the leave.
Further in Precision Steel and Engineering Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518 the Hon'ble Supreme Court having discussed the relevant provisions of Act 59 of 1958 held as follows:
The Controller has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant under subsec. (4) and the reply if any On perusing the affidavit filed by the tenant and the reply if any filed by landlord the Controller has to pose to himself the only question, `Does the affidavit disclose, not prove, facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession on the ground specified in cl. (e) of the proviso to Section 14 (1)?' The Controller is not to record a finding on disputed questions of facts or his preference of one set of affidavits against the other set of affidavits. That is not the jurisdiction conferred on the Controller by subsec. (5) because the Controller while examining the question whether there is a proper case for granting leave to contest the application has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant disclosing such facts as would prima facie and not on contest disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession. At the stage when affidavit is filed under subsec. (4) by the tenant and the same is being examined for the purpose of subsec. (5) E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.10/17 the Controller has to confine himself only to the averments in the affidavit and the reply if any and that become manifestly clear from the language of subsec. (5) that the Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession etc. The jurisdiction to grant leave to contest or refuse the same is to be exercised on the basis of the affidavit filed by the tenant. That alone at that stage is the relevant document and one must confine to the averments in the affidavit. If the averments in the affidavit disclose such facts which, if ultimately proved to the satisfaction of the Court, would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession, that by itself makes it obligatory upon the Controller to grant leave. It is immaterial that facts alleged and disclosed are controverted by the landlord because the stage of proof is yet to come. It is distinctly possible that a tenant may fail to make good the defence raised by him. Plausibility of the defence raised and proof of the same are materially different from each other and one cannot bring in the concept of proof at the stage when plausibility has to be shown.
From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be discerned that while deciding the question of the grant of leave to contest under the provisions of section 25B of Act 59 of 1958, the Rent Controller should see the affidavit filed by the tenant and the counter affidavit filed by the landlord. From the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is also clear that while deciding the question of the grant of leave, the Controller is not required to conduct a full fledged trial and should only see that if the affidavit of the tenant raise any triable point the decision on which may disentitle the landlord from recovering possession of the premises. At the time of the decision on the question of leave, the Controller is not required to seek the proof of the defence of the tenant.
In Sarwan Dass Bange v. Ram Prakash, 2010 IV AD (Delhi) 252 it has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as follows:-
The Controller has not discussed as to how the pleas raised by the respondent/tenant in the application for leave to defend are such which if established by adducing evidence would disentitle the petitioner/landlord of an order of eviction under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act. Ordinarily, when a tenant approaches an advocate for drafting a leave to defend application, the advocate, using his legal acumen would dispute each and every plea of the landlord in the eviction petition. However, merely because the tenant so disputes and controverts the pleas of the landlord does not imply that the E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.11/17 provisions of summary procedure introduced in the Act with respect to ground of eviction on the ground of requirement is to be set at naught. The Controller is required to sift/comb through the application for leave to defend and the affidavit filed therewith and to see whether the tenant has given any facts/particulars which require to be established by evidence and which if established would disentitle the landlord from an order of eviction. The test is not of the tenant having controverted/denied the claim of the landlord and thus disputed questions of fact arising; the test is to examine the pleas of facts and then to determine the impact thereof.
8. In the present case, the respondent had sought leave to contest the application for eviction mainly on four grounds i.e. (i) That the petition is not maintainable as the employees of the petitioner are not dependent members of the petitioner. (ii) that the petitioner is having sufficient accommodation available with it,
(iii) That the petition has not been signed and filed by an authorized person. (iv) That the petition is not maintainable u/s 14 (1) (e).
In the applications for leave to contest, the respondent has not disputed the fact that he was not the tenant under the petitioner and also that the petitioner was not the landlord/Owner of the premises and no rent is being paid. Therefore, in the light of the pleadings of the parties and other material placed before this court, in so far as the purpose of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 is concerned, the petitioner is found to be the owner of the premises and it is also found that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
9. According to the respondent, there are triable points regarding the bona- fide necessity of the petitioner. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent that the employees of the petitioner's Company are not the members of the family of the petitioner and therefore, the petition is not maintainable and even the petitioner is already having sufficient accommodation available with it.
It is contended by the petitioner that for a Company, its employees are its family members, without whom, there cannot be the existence of the Company. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the famous judgment Canara Bank V/S T.T. Ltd. 2014 (214) DLT 526 wherein it is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the provisions of Sec. 22 of the DRC Act is in addition to provision of Sec. 14 (1) E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.12/17
(e) of the DRC Act and when a landlord Company requires premises for residential need of its employees, such a need is for its own use as per Sec. 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, and such an eviction petition for its own use is to be filed and is maintainable u/s 14 (1)
(e) of the Act.
In the case in hand, the requirement of the suit premises is sought by the petitioner to provide residential facilities to its employees. Hence, the contention of the respondent that the petition is not maintainable is not tenable nor it can be treated as a triable issue in this petition.
10. It is also contended by the respondent that the present petition is not signed and verified by a competent person and accordingly, the same is not maintainable.
It is contended by the petitioner that Sh. Ranjit Oberoi, the Director of the Company has been authorized vide resolution dt. 05.03.2013 of the Company to sign, verify, file and institute the petition.
The petitioner has placed on the record the Board Resolution dt. 05.03.2013, wherein he is duly authorized to sign and file the petition. There is nothing on record to suggest anything as to how Sh. Ranjit Oberoi was not competent to sign or file the present petition. Hence, it cannot be stated to be a triable issue.
11. It is also one of the contentions of the respondent that the petitioner is having sufficient accommodation available with it. It is further contended by the respondent that the petitioner owns several other residential properties in Delhi including at 1A, Maharaja Lal Lane, Civil Lines, Delhi and also at 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market and other places which are sufficient to meet the bona-fide requirement of the petitioner. But in his affidavit, annexed with the reply to the leave to defend application, the said fact are denied by the Director namely Sh. Ranjeet Oberoi on behalf of the petitioner. The respondent has not placed on record any document to support his contentions in this regard nor he had filed any photograph on record.
It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajender Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs. Leela Wati and Ors. 155(2008) DLT 383 that the leave to defend not to be granted to the tenant on the basis of false affidavit and false averments and E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.13/17 assertions. It was further held that only those averments in the affidavit are to be considered by the Rent Controller which have some substance in it and are supported by some material.
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mukesh Kumar Vs Rishi Prakash RCR 34/09 DOD 06.10.09 that a bald statement without supporting material does not give rise to a triable issue entitling tenant for leave to defend.
It is also contended by the respondent that the petition is not maintainable u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC Act rather it should have been filed u/s 14 (1) (f) of the Act.
It is contended by the petitioner that the petition was very much maintainable u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC Act itself and that it was for the petitioner to file it either u/s 14 (1) (e) or 14 (1) (f) of the Act.
The petitioner relied upon Sharifuddin Vs Babuddin CRP 468/2012 decided on 24.11.2008, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as under:-
7.The testimony of AW-1 shows that the premises had been under tenancy for about more than 80 years. AW-1 was born and brought up at there. It is obvious that since the premises had been in occupation of the tenant and the rent being meager, the premises had not been taken care of for the purpose of repair and maintenance. No fault can be found with the petitioner if the premises even after being vacated cannot be occupied directly and has to be given extensive repair or reconstruction. There is no conflict between provisions of Section 14 (1) (e) and 14 (1) (g) of DRC Act. A decree can be passed under Section 14 (1) (e) even in respect of a dilapidated premises where the landlord intends to live in the premises after repairing it. Section 14 (1) (g) operates in a different area. In case of 14 (1) (g) the premises is required by the landlord for the purpose of re-building or making any substantial additions or alterations not because the premises was in dilapidated condition but because the landlord wants to re-construct or wants to make additions or alterations in the premises for whatsoever purposes. Under section 14 (1) (e) the landlord can require the premises for his own use or for the use of his family members from the tenant who is in occupation of the premises. A tenant who is paying low rent may continue to live in a dilapidated premises because of meager rent being paid by him but after evicting the tenant from the premises, it was not necessary for E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.14/17 the landlord to shift into the premises in the same condition. He is always at liberty to first bring the premises to habitable and suitable condition by either reconstruction or repair and then shift to it. It is not necessary for him that he should get the premises vacated under section 14 (1) (g) and not under Section 14 (1) (e), if he wants to shift to the premises, after making it a habitable.
The petitioner also relied upon Om Prakash Vs Gurdev Singh RC. Rev. 275/2014 & CM 13437/2014 (stay), Decided on 20.05.2015, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as under:-
"7. Section 14 (1) (f) DRC Act provides eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises if the property has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and is required bona-fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated Section 14 (1)(g) is applicable where the eviction of the premises is sought on the bona-fide ground by the landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding or making substantial addition or alteration and that such alteration cannot be carried out without premises being vacated. Section 20 DRC Act provides that while making any order on the ground specified in Clause (f) or Clause (g) of the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of DRC Act, the Controller shall ascertain from the tenant whether he elects to be placed in occupation of the premises or part thereof from which he is to be evicted and if the tenants so elects, shall record the fact of election in the order and specify therein the date on or before which he shall deliver the possession so as to enable the landlord to commence the work of repairs or re- building. Section 14 (f) & (g) DRC Act thus permits eviction of the tenant for limited period subject to the tenant exercising the said option, however they do not apply to the cases where the landlord requires the premises bona-fidely for his own or for the use of his dependents."
As per petitioner, the suit premises is required for re-building but as per respondent, the suit premises is in habitable condition. For the sake of arguments, if the contentions of the respondent are presumed to be correct, the suit premises is in habitable condition and accordingly when the suit premises is in habitable condition, the petition is rightly maintainable u/s 14 (1) (e) of the Act.
E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.15/17
12. In the considered opinion of the court, the contentions of the respondent are without merit and cannot be sustained as the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the premises. In so far as the question of necessity is concerned, the law is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his necessity and he has got complete freedom in the matter. Therefore, a tenant cannot dictate the terms to the landlord regarding his necessity.
The petitioner has pleaded the bonafide requirement of the suit premises on the grounds that same is required by the petitioner to provide residential facilities to its employees in the suit premises that accordingly the suit premises is required by the petitioner Company for the benefit and residence of its employees and it doesn't have any other alternate accommodation.
In the absence of any substantial material brought before the court or pointed out by the respondent in the affidavit it cannot be said that the present application for eviction is actuated by mala fide and has not been made with bona fide intention. Merely stating in the affidavit that the application for eviction has been made with mala fide intention is not sufficient to sustain the contention of the respondent. The court is satisfied that there is no triable point between the parties.
As per the provisions of section 25-B of Act 59 of 1958 a tenant shall be entitled to leave to contest the petition for eviction if the affidavit filed by him discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the grounds specified in clause (e) of proviso to sub- section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958.
Even if there is any issue the same is insignificant and does not entitle the respondent from seeking leave to contest the application for eviction.
In view of above discussion and the documents filed by the parties, this court is of the considered view that there is no triable issue between the parties which entitles the respondent for leave to contest the present applications for eviction. The applications for leave to contest are without merit and the same is dismissed.
As an off shoot of the dismissal of the applications for leave to contest E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.16/17 made by the respondent, the petitioner is found entitled to recover the possession of premises, i.e. Room No. 19 at Grand Hotel Building, 2, Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi-54 as shown in colour in the site plan annexed with the application for eviction. The applications for eviction are allowed.
Let, a copy of the order be placed in all the files.
In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
In view of the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 this order for recovery of possession of premises shall not be executed before the expiration of a period of six months from this date.
(Rajinder Kumar)
Announced in the open court Additional Rent Controller-02
on this 29th November 2016 Central/Tis Hazari Courts
E47/16 Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frontier Sales Page no.17/17