Delhi High Court
Rajender Prasad Gupta vs Rajeev Gagerna on 20 March, 2014
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 20.03.2014
+ RC.REV. No.66 of 2011 & CM No.4635 of 2013
RAJENDER PRASAD GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Asit Tewari, Adv.
versus
RAJEEV GAGERNA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. N.K. Goyal with Ms. Varsha
Ahluwalia, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
% MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI (Open Court)
This is a tenant‟s petition challenging an order dated 29.11.2010
passed by the Additional Rent Controller, North District, Delhi,
whereby an order of eviction has been passed in respect of one shop and
one godown at property No.1028, Gali Teliyan, Tilak Bazar, Behind
Novelty Cinema, Delhi-110006. The respondent-landlord‟s petition
under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter
referred to as the „said Act‟) was allowed. The petitioner-tenant was
denied leave to defend, which he sought on the following grounds:
i. That there was no bona fide need.
ii. That the eviction petitioner was not absolute owner and landlord
RC. Rev. No.66 of 2011 Page 1 of 6
of the property; Smt. Shanti Devi was the owner of the premises and
prior to her Smt. Bela Devi was the owner thereof.
iii. That she had executed a will in favour of her nephews, i.e. sons of
Mr. Anandi Lal.
Therefore, the eviction petitioner had no locus standi to file the
petition. He has further argued that in any case, the petition was bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties; that there were other co-tenants in the
property and furthermore the petition was liable to be dismissed as the
tenancy was never terminated during the lifetime of the original tenant.
The leave to defend further contended that the eviction-petitioner
had one shop vacant on the ground floor of property No.1028, Gali
Teliyan, Tilak Bazar, Behind Novelty Cinema, Delhi and one property
at F-19/18, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051, which comprised of three
bedrooms, one drawing-cum-dining room, two latrines, two bathrooms,
two kitchens and the daughter of the petitioner was of marriageable age
and, therefore, the need for her would not sustain. Thus, the eviction-
petitioner would have sufficient accommodation hence, no bona fide
need was made out under Section 14(1)(e) of the said Act. However,
the Trial Court after considering contentions and the facts &
circumstances of the case, concluded as under:
RC. Rev. No.66 of 2011 Page 2 of 6
"a. The next ground taken is that petitioner has not
disclosed the details of his family members and their age but
said ground appears to have been taken for the sake of the
defence as if in the entire leave to defend application number of
family members have not been denied and so far as age of
daughter is concerned when it is alleged that the daughter is
practicing Advocate but said factum has not been denied in the
entire leave to defend application and so far as age of son is
concerned, it is nowhere stated in the leave to defend
application that he is infant and thus, it cannot be said that
petition lacks of material particulars.
b. The other ground taken is availability of other
suitable accommodation at property No.F-19/18, Krishna Nagar
and one vacant shop on the ground floor in property No.1028,
Gali Teliyan, Tilak Bazar as well as entire first floor of the said
property and petitioner has denied the availability of the same.
The Site Plan of the property at Krishna Nagar and of Tilak
Bazar have been filed along with the reply to leave to defend
application and in the Site Plan it is disclosed that the remaining
portion of the property at Krishna Nagar is in possession of the
brother of the petitioner, i.e. Mr. Sanjeev Gagerna which is
shown in Green colour and the other shop at Ground floor of
the property at Tilak Bazar is in possession of tenant Mr.
Rajesh Kumar Gupta, one room attached with the kitchen on
first floor is in possession of Mr. Sanjeev Gagerna in terms of
the Will executed by Smt. Shanti Devi and the other room on
the first floor is in possession of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta and
the room at second floor is in possession of one Lalita Prasad
and no counter Site Plan has been filed on behalf of the
respondent rebutting the claim of the petitioner and in absence
of any counter Site Plan, the Site Plan filed by the petitioner are
deemed to be correct and from the averment in the petition,
petitioner is having three rooms in his possession and
petitioner‟s family consists of petitioner, his wife, son and
daughter and no where in the entire leave to defend application
it has been denied that the petitioner‟s daughter is not practicing
as an Advocate and requirement is shown of her for the purpose
of her professional office and in all three rooms are available
RC. Rev. No.66 of 2011 Page 3 of 6
and as per requirement shown two rooms are required by
petitioner and his wife, one room as Pooja room, one room as
guest room, one as bed room for the daughter and one as study
room for the son and thus, requirement of the petitioner is
shown of more accommodation for residential purpose and said
requirement as well as other requirement for office of daughter
and keeping in mind the requirement of the daughter for the
purposes of professional office it is clear that there is no space
available for running the office and thus, it is established from
the record available that need of the petitioner is genuine and
bonafide for the purposes of running professional office for the
daughter.
c. The next ground taken is that petitioner wants to
convert the property in question into the market to get
pecuniary benefits but said ground appears to have been taken
for the sake of defence without having any substance as there is
protection provided under Section 19 of the DRC Act to the
tenant.
d. The next ground taken is that there is no
notification of any enactment amending the provision under
Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act and there is only suggestion of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court and therefore, petition is not
maintainable as the property in dispute is commercial in nature.
It appears that said ground is taken for the sake of defence
without having any substance as in Satyawati Case; Hon‟ble
Supreme Court has held that the provision under Section
14(1)(e) of the DRC Act has no application to the premises
which are let out for commercial purposes if same is required
for bonafide requirements of the landlord/owner or for his
dependent and that is the law of land."
The memorandum of appeal reiterates the same grounds taken in
the leave to defend and counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial
Court fell into an error on each of the grounds listed in the memorandum
RC. Rev. No.66 of 2011 Page 4 of 6
of appeal. He submits that the respondent was not the owner of the
premises and in any case there was no bona fide need.
Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the
parties, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court has taken into
consideration each of the contentions raised in the leave to defend and
found them to be not triable issues. The reasons for and conclusion
arrived at cannot be faulted. Furthermore, simply because the daughter
of a marriageable age and allegedly likely to marry would not necessary
cut her ties from her maternal family nor would the requirement for her
accommodation in her father‟s house be lessened. Indeed, in the present
times a daughter who is married-out, may like to retain her
accommodation in her father‟s house which forms an emotional anchor
and a place for refuge for all times. In times of an unfortunate marital
discord such need becomes more acute should there be such a need.
Conversely her family also would want to retain a room so as to re-
assure her of a continued place of residence in her paternal home. A
married daughter‟s ties with her paternal family do not end upon her
marriage. For a married daughter her parents‟ home is always a refuge;
an abode of reassurance and an abiding source of emotional strength and
happiness. In the present case the daughter is a practicing advocate,
RC. Rev. No.66 of 2011 Page 5 of 6
i.e. a qualified professional, the need is all the more acute and bona fide.
This Court finds, as did the Trial Court did, that no triable issues were
raised in the leave to defend. Therefore, there was no need to grant
leave or set the matter for trial. The reasons and the conclusion arrived
at in the impugned order are correct and call for no interference.
The petition and the application are accordingly dismissed as
being without any merit.
MARCH 20, 2014 NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
b'nesh RC. Rev. No.66 of 2011 Page 6 of 6