Delhi High Court
Harsh Kumar & Ors vs Man Mohan & Ors on 6 March, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
Bench: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 06.3.2012
+ RC. REV.No.524/2011 & CM Nos.22653-54/2011
HARSH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Naresh Thanai, Advocate.
versus
MAN MOHAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. Impugned judgment is dated 27.8.2011; application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend had been dismissed; eviction petition filed by the landlord had been decreed.
2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement; the premises in dispute is one room, kitchen WC on the first floor (as depicted in red colour in the site plan attached) which has been tenanted out to the RCR No.524/2011 Page 1 of 5 tenant @ `12.12 per month exclusive of electricity charges. The present eviction petition has been filed on the ground that the premises are required bonafide by the landlord; the family of the landlord consists of himself, his wife and their two grown up children. They are presently in occupation of one room, baithak, WC as depicted in blue colour in the site plan; they are also in occupation of one room ,WC and kitchen with a kolki as shown in green colour; portion marked X in the site plan consisting of one room WC and bath is being used as a factory portion since the last 8-10 years by the petitioner. Present accommodation available with the petitioner is insufficient.
3. The site plan has depicted these portions correctly; there is one room, kolki and WC are on the ground floor and there is one room on the first floor.
4. Application for leave to defend and the corresponding reply have been perused. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the eviction petition has not disclosed the complete accommodation; attention has been drawn to the averments made in the eviction petition; contention being that only three rooms have been disclosed in the present eviction petition wherein in the RCR No.524/2011 Page 2 of 5 application for leave to defend it has been vehemently averred that there are six rooms in the occupation of the landlord to which there has been a mere bald denial; second submission being that another alternate accommodation is also available with the landlord at 1234, Mahal Sari, Kashmere Gate, Delhi which has not been disclosed by the landlord to which again there has been a bald denial. These are the only two submissions which have been urged.
5. First contention of the petitioner that the landlord is in occupation of six rooms and not of three rooms and he has not disclosed correct fact in the eviction petition is not borne out from the record. Site plan has depicted status of the property which is available with the petitioner; the portions shown in blue and green colour are in the occupation of the landlord which comprise of one room, baithak and WC on the ground floor and one room, WC, kitchen on the first floor. There has been no concealment of any material fact. The submission of the tenants that there are six rooms available with the landlord has been vehemently denied; no counter site plan has been filed by the tenant to support this submission; how and from where he has gathered this notion has not been explained. A mere bald submission that the landlord is in RCR No.524/2011 Page 3 of 5 occupation of the six rooms without anything else to substantiate this submission does not and cannot in any manner raise a triable issue. This submission is without any merit.
6. The second submission of the petitioner that an alternate accommodation is available with the landlord at 1234, Mahal Sarai, Kashmere Gate, Delhi has also been vehemently denied. No evidence of any kind whatsoever has been placed on record by the tenant to substantiate this averment which has been categorically denied on affidavit by the landlord. Even as per the case of the tenant this property is even otherwise in occupation of the tenants; thus in no manner can it be said to be alternative suitable accommodation available with the landlord. There is also nothing on record to show that this property is owned by the landlord; the trial court has also returned a finding that ARC in a connected petition qua the same property has returned a positive finding that one Savitri Dhama was the tenant of the sister of the petitioner in these premises at 1234, Mahal Sarai, Kashmere Gate and not of the petitioner; these submissions of the petitioner that this property is owned by the landlord is negatived on this count as well. No triable issue has arisen.
RCR No.524/2011 Page 4 of 5
7. Courts have time and again reiterated the position that unless and until a triable issue arises leave to defend should not be granted in a routine or a mechanical manner.
8. In (1982) 3 SCC 270 Precision Steel and Engineering Works and Anr. vs. Prem Devi Niranjan Deva Tayal, the Apex Court held had held as follows:-
"Prayer for leave to contest should be granted to the tenant only where a prima facie case has been disclosed by him. In the absence of the tenant having disclosed a prima facie case i.e. such facts as to what disentitles the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction, the Court should not mechanically and in routine manner grant leave to defend."
9. No triable issue having been raised in this case; and the averments made in the eviction petition having disclosed the bonafide need of the landlord; the eviction petition was rightly decreed. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 06, 2012 nandan RCR No.524/2011 Page 5 of 5