Delhi District Court
Sh. Radhey Govind Rohtagi vs Sh. Subhash Chand Chhabra on 27 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHAWANI SHARMA: ACJ/CCJ/ARC
SHAHDARA: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
E 56/2014
Unique Identification No. 02402C0158822014
Sh. Radhey Govind Rohtagi
S/o late Sh. B.K.D. Rohatgi,
R/o 109, Saini Enclave,
Vikas Marg, Delhi. .....Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Subhash Chand Chhabra
2. Sh. Shyam Chhabra
Both C/o tenanted premises at 1/11700A,
Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara,
Delhi110032.
And
Both R/o B57/D, Jitar Nagar, Street No.19,
Parvana Road, Delhi110051. .....Respondents
Application for Eviction of tenant under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958.
Petition filed on : 24.05.2014
Order reserved on : 27.02.2015
Date of Order : 27.02.2015
Decision : Leave to defend application of the
respondents - dismissed and
eviction order passed.
E - 56/14
Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 1 of 23
ORDER
1. This is a petition for eviction of tenant under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as 'DRC Act').
2. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Summons under prescribed format were served upon the respondents on 29.05.2014. An application seeking leave to defend the petition was filed on 06.06.2014. Petitioner filed reply to the same.
3. (a) The petitioner has sought an eviction against the respondents stating that the petitioner became the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property bearing no. 1/11700A, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi110032 admeasuring 400 sq. yds. by way of sale deed executed in his favour by Ms. Shashi Kanta on 14.11.2002 which was duly registered in the office of Sub RegistrarIV, Seelampur, Delhi and the respondents were tenants under the tenancy of erstwhile owner/landlady in respect of tenanted premises measuring about 8' x 12' on ground floor in the suit property more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan. The respondents have admitted the tenancy under Ms. Shashikanta however, they have refused to acknowledge the petitioner as their landlord.
E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 2 of 23
(b) It is submitted that the suit property is being used to run and carry out the activities of K.D. Field Public School which was established in the year 1996. The school was set up by 'Sh. Mannu Lal & Smt. Surajwati Chritable Society', a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is submitted that the property adjoining to the suit property is owned by Prince Rohatgi and is measuring approx. 350 sq. yds. which is being collectively used for running the school. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the Secretary of the Society and is working as Manager at the school. The petitioner receives rental income from the school and it is his duty and obligation to take all necessary steps as as to ensure that the overall facilities and the standards of eduction at the school do not suffer on account of inefficient and ineffective utilization of the suit property.
(c) It is submitted that the petitioner requires the tenanted premises bonafidely for enhancing and upgrading the overall facilities available at the school which in turn shall yield in improving the quality of education and promoting the school's name in the eyes of general public. The petitioner seeks to utilize the tenanted premises for running a stationary shop as the petitioner has no other reasonable suitable accommodation in the school premises or in the nearby locality of the school to maintain storeroom for books and to operate a E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 3 of 23 stationary shop. In today's world, every secondary school has its own stationary shop within its premises to facilitate the students.
(d) It is submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen who intends to operate and run the said stationary shop for his own benefit as well since he is sitting idle at home. An independent source of income at his age is always desirable for the petitioner in a bonafide manner.
(e) It is submitted that the petitioner is facing unnecessary financial and mental hardship in arranging space for a stationary shop for himself nearby the school. In absence of necessary facilities, such as a stationary shop, the reputation of school is likely to suffer.
(f) It is submitted that the respondents are keeping the tenanted premises unto themselves without any reason only in order to harass the petitioner. The respondents are using the tenanted premises as their godown/storage space for stock of medicinal goods and usually, open the premises every day in the evening for a few hours only. A storage space for medicinal goods/stock does not necessarily need to be in a school premises and can always be relocated to a different location. There is one shop occupied by Dr. Rajesh Rohatgi, MBBS in the suit property as petitioner's tenant. It is, therefore, prayed to pass an eviction order in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 4 of 23
4. (a) On the other hand, ld. counsel for the respondent has argued through his leave to defend application that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents and it has been held so by the court of Sh. G.N. Pandey, Ld. ASCJ (NE), Delhi (as the Ld. Judge then was) in civil suit no.22 of 2009 titled as Radhey Govind vs. Subhash Chhabra & Anr. Vide Judgment dated 05.05.2010. It is submitted that the petitioner intentionally concealed the above said fact and file the present petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed an appeal against the decree of the ASCJ Delhi and after his application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2010 and appeal was withdrawn unconditionally. It is submitted that the present petition is hit by the provisions of Section 11 CPC. It is further submitted that the respondents were inducted as tenants by one Smt. Shashi Kanta by virtue of a written tenancy agreement. Smt. Shashi Kanta filed a petition for eviction against the respondents and the said petition bearing no.E132/99 was disposed off/dismissed vide order dated 25.07.2002 passed by the court of Dr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the then Ld. ARC, KKD Courts. It is submitted that the respondents neither paid any rent to the petitioner nor even admitted the petitioner as their landlord qua the suit property as the petitioner himself E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 5 of 23 deposed before the court in suit no.22/2009 that respondents are not his tenants.
(b) It is submitted that the court has no jurisdiction in the present matter as the area in which the suit property falls is with the area of Uldhanpur, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi and admittedly there is no notification under Section 1(2) of the DRC Act as the petitioner himself admitted the said fact in his suit filed against the respondents being suit no.22/2009 titled as "Radhey Govind vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr." and the court of Sh. G.N. Pandey, Ld. ASCJ after discussion of the material available on record and rival pleas of the parties, has decided that the area in which suit property is situated does not fall within the ambit of Delhi Rent Control Act for application of the DRC Act to the said area.
(c) It is further submitted that it has been adjudicated by the Civil court that the suit property is not owned by the petitioner as the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner is not pertaining to the suit property. Since the petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlord of the suit property hence he no locus standi to file the present petition. It is submitted that the present petition has been filed under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act which is for bonafide need and first ingredient of bonafide is the truthfulness.
E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 6 of 23
(d) It is submitted that the petitioner has filed the present suit in respect of property no.1/11700 (New No.1/11700A) but there is no material to show that how the number has been changed and by whom. It is further submitted that in the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner in the civil suit, clause I of the sale deed specifically mentioned that actual, physical and vacant possession of the property under sale, has been handed over to the petitioner on 14.11.2002 and the present respondents are in possession of the suit shop since 1986 till date. The petitioner himself admitted that the petitioner is owner of the portion of the property no.1/11700, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara but sale deed filed was in respect of property bearing no. 1/11700A. Thus property itself cannot be specified.
(e) It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to disclose the numbers of the rooms, constructed in the property which are in his possession nor specified the accommodation available and utilized. It is submitted that for bonafide requirement of the school, a petition can only be maintained by the society running the school as a school is neither a business nor any person can run a school as a sole proprietor. It is submitted that the petitioner has stated that he has let the property adjoining to the suit property to a school and rental income from the school is the source of the income of the petitioner. So the petitioner E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 7 of 23 is seeking a decree of eviction on the ground of section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act for letting the suit property for enhancing his monthly income which is against the spirit of the provision. It is submitted that the petition cannot be maintained by an individual for bonafide need of a trust or society and petition can only be maintained by the trust or society, running the school. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a very rich man, is harassing the respondents since long. The present petition has been filed in respect of a shop admeasuring 8' x 12' but the shop in possession of the respondent is 9' x 13'. the petitioner is not even aware of the measurement of the fact.
Thus, it is argued that the respondent has raised triable issues and the respondent is entitled to leave to defend.
7. Before adverting to the submissions of the parties, it would be apposite to encapsulate the legal provision under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which governs the current litigation. Section 14 (1) (e) provides that:
14. Protection of tenant against eviction. (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 any court or Controller in favour of landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 8 of 23 the recovery of possession of the premises on one ore more of the following grounds only, namely:
(e) that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord 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 other reasonably suitable accommodation.
8. In Shambhoo Singh vs. Triloki Nath Sharma 2012 (2) Rent LR 52, it was held that the essential ingredients to establish a case under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act are :
(a) The applicant has to be the landlord/owner.
(b) The premises should have been let out for residential or commercial purposes or both.
(c) The said premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation for himself or for his family member dependent upon him.
(d) The said landlord or family member dependent upon him has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.
9. In the present case the petitioner has filed the eviction petition stating that he is the landlord/owner of the tenants/respondents in respect of a tenanted premises measuring 8' x 12' on ground floor of the property bearing no.1/11700A, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 9 of 23 Shahdara, Delhi110032. The petitioner has also claimed that the reason for eviction is a bonafide claim for commercial purpose for himself. He has no other property except the present property in the vicinity of Delhi.
10. What has to be seen now is whether the leave to defend application moved by the respondents has raised any triable issues or not for which evidence is to be led? I shall deal with all the defences raised in the leave to defend application of the respondent in a sequential manner:
11. The first ground on which leave to defend is sought is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents and it has been held so by the court of Sh. G.N. Pandey, Ld. ASCJ (NE), Delhi (as the Ld. Judge then was) in civil suit no.22 of 2009 titled as Radhey Govind vs. Subhash Chhabra & Anr. Vide Judgment dated 05.05.2010. It is submitted that the petitioner intentionally concealed the above said fact and file the present petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed an appeal against the decree of the ASCJ Delhi and after his application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2010 and appeal was withdrawn unconditionally. It is submitted that the present petition is hit by the provisions of Section 11 CPC. It is E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 10 of 23 further submitted that the respondents were inducted as tenants by one Smt. Shashi Kanta by virtue of a written tenancy agreement. Smt. Shashi Kanta filed a petition for eviction against the respondents and the said petition bearing no.E132/99 was disposed off/dismissed vide order dated 25.07.2002 passed by the court of Dr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the then Ld. ARC, KKD Courts. It is submitted that the respondents neither paid any rent to the petitioner nor even admitted the petitioner as their landlord qua the suit property as the petitioner himself deposed before the court in suit no.22/2009 that respondents are not his tenants. Next ground taken by the respondents is that the petitioner has filed the present suit in respect of property no.1/11700 (New No.1/11700A) but there is no material to show that how the number has been changed and by whom. It is further submitted that in the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner in the civil suit, clause I of the sale deed specifically mentioned that actual, physical and vacant possession of the property under sale, has been handed over to the petitioner on 14.11.2002 and the present respondents are in possession of the suit shop since 1986 till date. The petitioner himself admitted that the petitioner is owner of the portion of the property no.1/11700, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara but sale deed filed was in respect of property bearing no.1/11700A. Thus property itself cannot E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 11 of 23 be specified.
12. A party having a grievance must have a remedy access to justice is a main is a human right when there exists a human right, a disputant must have a remedy in terms of the doctrine ubi jus ibi remedian. This is so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case Bhagubai Dhanabhai Khalasi vs. State of Gujarat 2007 (4) SCC 241. Ubi jus ibi remedian by broom "there is no wrong without a remedy. Whenever the common law gives a right or prohibits an injury, it also gives a remedy. If a man has a right, he must have a means to indicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise and enjoyment of it, and indeed, it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy, for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal."
13. As regards objection/ground of want of landlordtenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents, the same is not tenable in the light of the fact for the purposes of proceedings under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, it is not necessary that the petitioner should be owner in its absolute terms, rather the petitioner being more than owner would suffice the case. Further it is the tendency of the tenants to deny ownership of petitioner. In 1995 RLR E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 12 of 23 162 Jiwan Lal vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors., it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with concept of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act as under: "There is tendency on the part of the tenants to deny ownership in cases U/s 14 (1) (e). To test the substance of such pleas on the part of the tenants the court have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said that who else is owner. Further these cases U/s 14 (1) (e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property.
"Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms."
14. Hence, this leg of the argument that the petitioner is not the owner of tenanted premises, the contention of the respondent is untenable in the light of the fact that he himself has admitted the averments as to the landlordship of the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here for getting the order of eviction, it is sufficient if the petitioner is more than a tenant. Therefore, the respondent cannot at this stage, deny the ownership of the petitioner. Secondly, under the DRC Act, the landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show that he is more than tenant. The petitioner does not have to prove absolute ownership under Transfer of Property Act, but for the purpose of E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 13 of 23 Delhi Rent Control Act. It was held in Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. Leela Wati & Ors., 155 (2008) Delhi Law Times 383 that "A landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership as required under the Transfer of Property Act. He is required that he is more than a tenant". It was also held in Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "It is settled preposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant." Even otherwise, under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, the tenant is precluded from denying the title of the landlord and for the purpose of DRC Act as held in Sushil Kanta vs. Rajeshwar Kumar, cited as 1999 Rajdhani Law Reporter 289, "an owner U/s. 14 (1) (e) need not be an absolute owner requiring registered Sale Deed in his favour contemplated by the general law in S. 54, TPA. It is enough if he has paid for and built tenancy premises".
15. Further more, no notice of attornment is required. Under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, a landlord has been defined to be a person who, for the time being is receiving, or is entitled to receive, (emphasis supplied) the rent of any premises. (see Section 2 E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 14 of 23
(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act) If the ownership changes by way of sale, gift or otherwise the relationship of tenant and landlord also changes. The new owner of the property would also come into the definition of the landlord and the new owner would be entitled to receive the rent. Delhi Rent Control Act does not provide any procedure nor there is anything in common law any particular procedure for the attornment of tenancy nor any notice for attornment is required under any provisions of any law, to be given by the landlord to the tenant. Assuming that there has been a change of ownership of the tenanted premises and no notice of it is given to the tenant. In such case the tenant does not cease to be the tenant, the only effect of not giving notice as far as the tenant is concerned is that if the tenant pays the rent to the previous landlord, the tenant would be absolved from any consequence that might has to follow for not paying the rent.
16. Further more, the sale deed executed between the petitioner and one Ms. Shashi Kanta (admittedly previous erstwhile owner of the tenanted premises) and site plan filed in support substantiates the absolute and exclusive ownership of the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondents/tenants that they were inducted tenants by the said owner Ms. Shashi Kanta by virtue of written tenancy agreement Ms. E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 15 of 23 Shashi Kanta has refused to receive the rent and the applicants are depositing the rent in the court. The petitioner is not stated to be the owner of the tenanted premises not even the rent had been tendered to him. The finding of the Ld. Civil Court by the judgment dated 05.05.2010 to the effect that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is a tentative opinion based on the evidence adduced before it (before whom the material petitioner's witness Ms. Shashi Kanta could not testify despite application for brining her testimony on record dated 14.12.2010 even before the Ld. Appellate court), is only for the purpose of the disposal of the case before the same cannot operate bar for allowing the present petition.
17. It was observed in Precision Steel & Engineering Works vs. Prema Deva M. Deva Tayal 1982 AIR (SC) 1518 that "Before concluding this point conceding that a summary procedure has been derived so that bane of law courts and legal procedure as at present in vogue manifestly showing regard for the truth being the last item on the list of priorities, and therefore, the tenants should not necessarily be permitted to prolong the litigation and cause hardship to the landlord who is seeking possession on the ground of personal requirement by raising untenable and frivolous defence where speedy decision is desirable in the interest of society, does not imply that E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 16 of 23 ignoring the mandate of law, the Controller should hold trial at a stage not prescribed by the statutes.
In a civil proceedings, the court decided on preponderance of probabilities and it may that while evaluating the evidence, the court may lean one way or the other but one rejected does not necessarily become vaxatious or frivolous. The last two are positive concepts and have to be specifically found and it is not end product of failure to offer convincing proof because sometimes a party may fail to prove the fact because other side can so doctor or articulate the facts that the proof may not be easily available. Coupled with this it is the fact that the justice delivery system in his country worshiped and ardently eulogized is an adversary system, the basic postulate of which was noticed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal 1955 (2) SCR 1 at page 8 as under: "Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is procedure, something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties, not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done on both sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it. Next there must be ever present to the mind the fact that our laws of procedure are E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 17 of 23 grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decision should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and properly should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them. Of course, there must be exceptions and where they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken by and large, and subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be constructed, wherever, that is reasonably possible, in the light of that principle."
18. Another issue taken by the respondents is that the court has no jurisdiction in the present matter as the area in which the suit property falls is with the area of Uldhanpur, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi and admittedly there is no notification under Section 1(2) of the DRC Act as the petitioner himself admitted the said fact in his suit filed against the respondents being suit no.22/2009 titled as "Radhey Govind vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr." and the court of Sh. G.N. Pandey, Ld. ASCJ after discussion of the material available on record and rival pleas of the parties, has decided that the area in which suit property is situated does not fall within the ambit of Delhi Rent Control Act for application of the DRC Act to the said area.
19. This ground of objection has also been taken by the tenants in the previous litigation i.e. C.S. No.22/2009. In the written statement filed, it is stated that the tenanted premises falls within the ambit of E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 18 of 23 DRC Act falls within the ambit of DRC Act, jurisdiction of civil court is barred. However, the ld. Civil Court gave its finding holding that the suit is not hit by Section 50 of the DRC Act. The tentative opinion given by Ld. Civil Court was only for the disposal of the suit and based on the evidence adduced by the parties in the matter. Since the defendants in that suit, neither produced any notification, the objection was decided in favour of the petitioner (plaintiff therein). Rather, the applicants are estopped from raising contradictory plea. Further in Sheel Kumar Goyal vs. Surender Kumar Sharma RSA No.109/11, decided on 26.02.2014, it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that village Uldhanpur is included in the area of Municipal Committee Shahdara and Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 applies to the area where the suit property is located in village Uldhanpur.
20. As regards the objection as to the jurisdiction of the forum, whether a forum has jurisdiction or not, has to be decided while reference to the initial assumption of jurisdiction by that forum. The question depends not on the truth or falsehood of the facts into which it has to enquire or upon the correctness of its finding on these facts, but upon their nature, and it is determinable at the commencement, not at the conclusion of enquiry (AIR 1962 SC 1621 relied). Whenever jurisdiction of a forum is challenged, that forum has inherent E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 19 of 23 jurisdiction to decide the said question (AIR 1991 SC 88 relied). Every court or tribunal is not only entitled but bound to determine whether the matter in which it is asked to exercise jurisdiction comes within its jurisdiction or not (AIR 1979 SC 404 relied). Neither consent, acquiescences, waiver nor estoppal can create it. In the same way, parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction upon court/forum which it does not have under law. This goes to further saying that no court/forum can decide the fact that another forum/tribunal has or has not the jurisdiction with respect to particular matter with respect to which that another forum/tribunal has jurisdiction to decide under law.
21. Another ground taken by the respondent is that the petitioner has failed to disclose the numbers of the rooms, constructed in the property which are in his possession nor specified the accommodation available and utilized. It is submitted that for bonafide requirement of the school, a petition can only be maintained by the society running the school as a school is neither a business nor any person can run a school as a sole proprietor. The petitioner has stated that he has let the property adjoining to the suit property to a school and rental income from the school is the source of the income of the petitioner. So the petitioner is seeking a decree of eviction on the ground of section 14 E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 20 of 23 (1) (e) of the DRC Act for letting the suit property for enhancing his monthly income which is against the spirit of the provision. It is submitted that the petition cannot be maintained by an individual for bonafide need of a trust or society and petition can only be maintained by the trust or society, running the school. It is also argued that the petitioner is a very rich man, is harassing the respondents since long. The present petition has been filed in respect of a shop admeasuring 8' x 12' but the shop in possession of the respondent is 9' x 13' the petitioner is not even aware of the measurement of the fact.
22. The arguments as advanced is not tenable in the light of the fact that she is herself in need of the accommodation and that she herself is the best judge of her own requirements. In Sudesh Kumar Soni & Anr. vs. Prabha Khanna & Anr., 153 (2008) Delhi Law Times 652, the court observed that "It is not for tenant to dictate terms to landlord as to who else he can adjust himself without getting possession of tenanted premisessuitability has to be seen for convenience of landlord and his family members and on the basis of circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habit and background."
23. In Sanjay Mehra & Ors. vs. Sunil Malhotra & Anr. 170 (2010) DLT 797 while dealing with scope of Section 25B of DRC Act, it was held that the Section 25B is a code in itself providing for E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 21 of 23 summary procedure with object to facilitate expeditious disposal and unless a tenant is able to bring forth a challengeable credit to the assertion of bonafide need of the landlord, readily granted the tenant leave to defend has danger of reducing every summary proceedings intended to help speedy disposal into a regular trial thus defeating the very object of the provision.
Conclusion:
24. It is well settled law that leave to defend can be granted to the tenant in case of any triable issue has been raised by him, which can be adjudicated by consideration of additional evidence. The mere existence or averment of any triable issue is not sufficient. The nature of the triable issue raised by the tenant must be such that it would disentitle the landlord from obtaining the eviction order. The whole purpose and import of summary procedure under Section 25 B of the Act would otherwise be defeated. The 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 which disentitles the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction, the Court should not mechanically & in routine manner grant leave to defend.
25. In the light of the aforesaid legal ratio, all the pleas taken by E - 56/14 Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 22 of 23 the respondent seems to be sham and moonshine, which have failed to raise any requisite triable issues. The contents of the application for leave to defend have failed to rebut the presumption of bonafide qua the need of the petitioner. The application for leave to defend filed by the respondent is thus rejected.
26. Consequently, an eviction order is passed under Section 14 (1)
(e) of the DRC Act against the respondents regarding the tenanted premises measuring about 8' x 12' on ground floor in the property bearing no. 1/11700A, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi110032. as shown with red colour in the site plan as shown in red colour in the site plan filed by the petitioner in this case.
27. However in light of Section 14 (7) DRCA, the aforesaid eviction order shall not be executable for a period of six months from today.
28. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
29. After compliance, file be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open (Bhawani Sharma)
Court on 27.02.2015 ACJ/CCJ/ARC (Shahdara)
(Order contains 23 pages.) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
E - 56/14
Radhey Govind Rohatgi vs. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. Page 23 of 23