Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
M.L. Mehta, J.
Accebeen Steel Pvt. Ltd and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Jai Shree Khanna —Respondent
RC Rev. 290/2012
Decided on 23.7.2012
For the Petitioners:Mr. K.K. Bhuchar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjiv Bahal and Mr. Eklavya Behal, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Leave to defend is granted to tenant in case of any triable issue raised before trial court which can be adjudicated by consideration of additional evidence.
Headnote:Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958—Sections 14(1)(e) and 25-B(8)—Eviction on ground of bonafide personal necessity of landlord—Dismissal of leave application filed by petitioner-tenant—Brother of a married woman cannot be termed as a family member dependent on her for residential purposes—Only immediate family members of a person can claim right of residence in property owned by him/her—This effectively makes it a case of requirement of additional accommodation by respondent—In such cases leave to defend must be accorded to defendant—Where a prima facie case is made out by tenant which disentitle applicant from getting order of eviction against respondent and at the same time entitle respondent to leave to defend, it would be erroneous to refuse such permission by outrightly rejecting triable issues raised by tenant— Impugned order set aside and petitioner granted leave to contest eviction petition. (Paras 10 to 14)
Result: Petition allowed.
M.L. Mehta, J. —The present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred U/S 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) r/w S. 115 CPC against the order dated 21.03.2012 passed by Learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller wherein, the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner in eviction petition E-32/2009 was dismissed.
2. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent in respect of property bearing No. 19 Nizamuddin East, New Delhi. The suit property was let out by predecessor in interest of respondent to the petitioner vide lease deed dated 01.05.1973. The demised property was let out at the monthly rent of Rs.2450/- for residential purposes. In the eviction petition, it was submitted by the respondent that she lives with her husband and son in Mumbai in a tenanted flat. Respondent’s husband is the Director of M/s Paramount Dyes and Chemicals Private Ltd. with its offices at Delhi and Gurgaon whereas the respondent is proprietor of M/s Tribaels India which is a firm dealing in carpets. It was the respondent’s case that she and her husband visit Delhi 5-6 times a year and have no place to stay in Delhi and hence require the demised property for herself as well as for her family members who are dependent upon her for residence. The respondent also averred that the first floor of the suit property was occupied by her brother Mr. Anil Verman and hence the first floor was not available to meet the requirement of their family. It is also submitted that the respondent has no other alternative accommodation in Delhi and thus sought the eviction of the petitioner from the suit property on the ground of bona fide requirement.
3. In the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner various contentions were raised disputing the alleged bona fide requirement as projected by the respondent. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied by the petitioner. It was further submitted that the respondent has not placed on record any document to prove that she and her husband visit Delhi frequently and hence there was absolutely no bona fide requirement of the respondent qua the suit property. Another ground that was put forth by the petitioner in the leave to defend application was that the brother of the respondent Mr. Anil Verman was permanently settled at Goa and neither he nor his family members were living on the first floor of the suit property. To substantiate this contention, the petitioner also submitted that the brother of the respondent owns property No. D-251, Defence Colony, New Delhi and is not dependent on the respondent for the purpose of residence. While rejecting the contentions made by the petitioner the learned Rent Controller observed that the petitioner has not submitted any document to refute the claim made by the respondent regarding the occupancy of the first floor of the suit premises by the brother of the respondent. It was further observed that on the basis of the copy of a will placed on record by the respondent the ownership of the suit premises was transferred in favour of the respondent and hence the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties cannot be disputed by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller relied on the copies of the air tickets produced by the respondent to conclude that she and her husband were in fact frequently visiting Delhi from Mumbai for business purposes. 4. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the learned Rent Controller has committed grave illegality in rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the present case was of requirement of additional accommodation as the first floor of the property was lying vacant and the plea taken up by the respondent that her brother was the occupant of the first floor of the suit property, was a concocted one. It has also been submitted that the present case being of additional accommodation leave to defend should have been granted to the p
