Delhi District Court
Mahant Jasvinder Singh Dass vs Sh. Gurudev Singh on 6 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR, ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
ARC No.- 25674/2016
Mahant Jasvinder Singh Dass,
S/o Sh. Jarnail Singh,
R/o WZ-4 B Block,
Baba Srichand Asharam,
Shivaji Vihar, Janta Colony,
New Delhi-110027. ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Gurudev Singh
S/o Not known,
R/o WZ-4, Shop No. 6 & 7,
B-Block, Baba Shri Chand Ashram,
Shiviji Vihar, Janta Colony,
New Delhi-110027. ..Respondent
Date of Filing : 11.08.2015
Date of Order : 06.04.2019
ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND
1. Present petition U/Sec. 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") has been filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. WZ-4, Shop No. 6 and 7 B-Block, Baba Shri Chand Ashram, Shivaji Vihar, Janta Colony, New Delhi-110027 fully shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises') in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
ARC No. 25674/16 Mahant Jasvinder Singh Dass Vs Gurudev Singh Page 1 /92. It is averred by the petitioner that the tenanted premises was let to the respondent for commercial purpose by the petitioner. That the petitioner is residing on the other part of the same property bearing no. WZ-4, B-Block, Khasra No.3521/1962, Shivaji Vihar, New Delhi-110027 along with his family members. That the said property is a Ashram (Dera) known as Baba Shri Chand Ashram (Registered). That from 28th August to 5th September of every year the petitioner and other members of the Ashram are used to celebrate the birhday of their guru i.e. Jagat Guru Udasin Acharya Bhagwan Shri Chander Ji Prakash Utsav on a very large scale with their followers coming in large numbers from all over India. That the said utsav continues from 28th August to 5th September at the suit property i.e. property bearing no. WZ-4, B-Block, Khasra No.3521/1962, Shivaji Vihar, New Delhi-110027. That the same is required bona fide by the petiioner/owner/landlord for organizing the birthday of their guru. Moreover, many other charitable camps are also organized by the ashram which is run by the petitioner and he has no other place for organising the above mentioned UTSAV. That due to the non-availability of the sufficient space the petitioner is facing great difficulties in carrying out his religious activities like the weekly kirtans, langars etc. Petitioner requires the tenanted premises for carrying out the religious activities of the petitioner and his ashram. That the tenanted premises and suit property is most suitable for the petitioner and his ashram to run their religious activities smoothly.
3. Notice of this eviction petition was sent to the respondent in the prescribed format which was duly served on the respondent. In response to which the respondent filed his leave to defend ARC No. 25674/16 Mahant Jasvinder Singh Dass Vs Gurudev Singh Page 2 /9 application accompanied by affidavit.
4. Reply to leave to defend filed by the petitioner refuting the pleas taken by respondent in the leave to defend.
5. I have carefully and minutely gone through the petition, leave to defend application accompanied by affidavit, reply, documents and material on record and case law relied upon.
6. Perusal of record shows that the respondent has sought the leave to defend on several grounds.
7. Perusal of record shows that the respondent has contended that alleged rent receipt does not show the address of the property. That the petitioner has mentioned in array of the petition "Baba Srichand Ashram" while the alleged rent receipt is in respect of Sri Chander Udasi Ashram (Regd.). It is further contended that the petitioner is not owner of property no. "WZ-4, Shop No. 6 & 7, B- Block, Baba Shri Chand Ashram". That the petitioner (Mahant Jasvinder Singh Dass) has no concern with "Baba Srichand Ashram". That the respondent (Gurudev Singh) is the owner of property No. WZ-275C, Near Baba Srichand Ashram B-Block, Janta Colony, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi. The respondent is in possession of said property since 1992. That the respondent purchased the said property from its previous owner Sh. Mulakh Raj Malhotra, S/o Sh. Nanak Chand Malhotra and Ram C. Mohni. However, the respondent lost the title documents. Thereafter, some dispute arose between the respondent and Estate Officer (Slum), V, Slum & JJ/MCD. In fact, Slum & JJ Department was claiming himself as the owner of the property and in this regard, Slum & JJ Department ARC No. 25674/16 Mahant Jasvinder Singh Dass Vs Gurudev Singh Page 3 /9 initiated the proceedings under the provisions of PP Act. Thereafter, Slum & JJ department dropped the proceedings.
8. Reply to the application filed by the respondent U/S 25 B of the DRC Act submitting that as per section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act the tenant can not challenge the ownership or title of the landlord while in the possession of the property. That even today the house tax is in the name of Sri Chand. That the respondent is in possession of the tenanted premises in the capacity of a tenant of the petitioner and the petitioner has annexed few rent receipts in support of his claim. That the respondent has not placed on record any such documents supporting his claim of ownership with respect to the suit property. That the respondent is not the owner of the suit property. That the respondent is not entitled to obtain leave to contest the eviction petition. Lastly, it is prayed that leave to defend may be dismissed.
THE LAW:
It is well settled that burden placed on a tenant is light and limited in that if the affidavit filed by him discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of the possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause
(e) are good enough to grant leave to defend.
It is further well settled that at a stage when the tenant seeks leave to defend, it is enough if he prima-facie makes out a case by disclosing such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction. Unless the tenant at that stage itself establishes a strong case as would non-suit the landlord leave to defend should not be granted when it is not the requirement of Section 25 B(5). A leave to defend sought for cannot also be granted for mere asking or ARC No. 25674/16 Mahant Jasvinder Singh Dass Vs Gurudev Singh Page 4 /9 in a routine manner which will defeat the very object of the special provisions contained in Chapter IIIA of the Act, leave to defend cannot be refused where an eviction petition is filed on a mere design or desire of landlord to recover possession of the premises from a tenant. Refusing to grant leave in such a case leads to eviction of a tenant summarily resulting in great hardship to her and her family members, if any, although he could establish if only leave is granted that a landlord would be disentitled for an order of eviction.
It is also well settled at the stage of granting leave to defend, parties rely on affidavits in support of the rival contentions. Assertions and counter assertions made in affidavits may not afford safe and acceptable evidence so as to arrive at an affirmative conclusion one way or the other unless there is a strong and acceptable evidence available to show that the facts disclosed in the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend where either frivolous, untenable or most unreasonable.
It is also well settled that when a possession is sought on the ground of personal requirement, a landlord has to establish his need and not his mere desire.
In short and substance wholly frivolous and totally untenable defence may not entitle a tenant to leave to defend but when a triable issue is raised a duty is placed on the rent controller by the statute itself to grant leave. It would expeditious disposal of eviction petition so that a landlord need not wait and suffer for long time. On the other hand, when a tenant is denied leave to defend although he had fair chance to prove his defence, will suffer great hardship. In this view a balanced view is to be taken having regard to competing claims.
There appears to be a mistaken belief that unless the tenant at ARC No. 25674/16 Mahant Jasvinder Singh Dass Vs Gurudev Singh Page 5 /9 that stage makes out such a strong case as would non-suit the landlord, leave to defend cannot be granted. This approach is wholly improper. When leave to defend is sought for, 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.
9. I have carefully and minutely gone through petition, leave to defend application accompanied by affidavit, reply, documents and material on record as well as the written submissions and case law relied upon.
10. Perusal of record shows that the respondent has disputed the landlordship and ownership of the petitioner in the leave to defend but he has not clearly mentioned the name and details of the owner of the suit property in his leave to defend. He has not mentioned who is owner of the tenanted premises if not the petitioner. As far as landlordship is concerned, respondent has contended that petitioner has mentioned in the array of petition "Baba Sri Chand Ashram"
whereas the alleged rent receipt is in respect of "Sh. Chander Udasi Ashram (Regd.)".
On the other hand, reply thereto has been filed by the petitioner on all the issues raised by the respondent.
11. I have carefully gone through the reply to leave to defend. Perusal of leave to defend shows that the respondent has nowhere challenged the landlordship of the petitioner in direct terms. Although, the respondent has claimed that the petitioner does not have any concern with Baba Srichand Ashram, yet he has not given ARC No. 25674/16 Mahant Jasvinder Singh Dass Vs Gurudev Singh Page 6 /9 the basis of this contention. Although, he has also claimed to be the owner of the property No. WZ-275-C, B-block, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi but he has not given the details of the person who is owner of the tenanted premises.
Perusal of record shows that no triable issue has been raised by the respondent in the present leave to defend which could dis- entitle the petitioner to obtain an eviction order against the respondent. Perusal of record also shows that petitioner has claimed himself as owner and landlord of the suit property including tenanted premises and also claimed that he is residing in the other part of the suit property and claimed that suit property is a Ashram (Dera) known as Baba Sri chand Ashram.
12. As such, record clearly shows that the respondent has not been able to raise any triable issue in respect of landlordship and ownership of the petitioner.
13. Record also shows that in the petition, petitioner has sought the tenanted premises for the purposes of celebration of birthday of his Guru i.e. Jagat Guru Udasin Acharya Bhagwan Shri Chanderji Prkash Utsav and also filed on record some photographs and pamphlets to show the bonafide requirements. On the other hand perusal of leave to defend shows that the respondent has claimed these photographs and pamphlets false and fabricated and no other submissions have been made on this point by the respondent.
As such, the respondent has not been able to contradict the bonafide requirement of the petitioner.
ARC No. 25674/16 Mahant Jasvinder Singh Dass Vs Gurudev Singh Page 7 /914. As far as alternative reasonably suitable accommodation is concerned, the respondent has not mentioned in leave to defend that the petitioner is having the alternative reasonably suitable accommodation for which he is seeking tenanted premises. As such, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner is not having alternative reasonably suitable accommodation for the purposes of celebration of birthday of his guru and other religious activities.
15. In my considered view, no triable issue has been raised by the respondent in the present leave to defend which could dis-entitle the petitioner to obtain an eviction order against the respondent.
CONCLUSION:
16. In view of the above discussion, I find no triable issue in the leave to defend application of the respondent which could dis-entitle the petitioner to obtain an eviction order in his favour. The application for leave to defend filed by the respondent is thus, dismissed.
17. Hence, as a consequence thereof, an eviction order is passed U/s. 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act in favour of petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. WZ-4, Shop No. 6 and 7 B-Block, Baba Shri Chand Ashram, Shivaji Vihar, Janta Colony, New Delhi-110027 fully shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition which is marked as Mark- P1 (Put by the court for the purpose of identification).
18. However, this order shall not be operative before the expiry of six months from today keeping in view Sec. 14(7) of D.R.C. Act.
ARC No. 25674/16 Mahant Jasvinder Singh Dass Vs Gurudev Singh Page 8 /919. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY NAGAR on 6th April, 2019.
NAGAR Date: 2019.04.06
16:45:41 +0530
(This order contains 09 pages)
(AJAY NAGAR)
Additional Rent Controller,
West District, THC, Delhi.
ARC No. 25674/16 Mahant Jasvinder Singh Dass Vs Gurudev Singh Page 9 /9