Abdul Rehman vs Jeevan Lal

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1 Impugned order is the order dated 19.02.2012; eviction petition filed by the landlord Jeewan Lal seeking eviction of his tenant from the tenanted premises (i.e. Shop No.2 in property bearing No.100, E- Block, South Anarkali, Delhi) (depicted in red colour in the site plan) had been decreed. Application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant had been declined. Record shows that the present eviction petition had been filed by landlord Jeewan Lal against his tenant Abdul Rehman. The premises as aforenoted have been let out to the tenant at monthly rental of Rs.534/- this was vide an oral agreement; contention of the petitioner/landlord is that he was the owner of the suit premises; he became the owner of the suit property after the death of Chand Rani which he had inherited from her. The petitioner is in urgent need of the premises as he wishes to start his own business having retired from Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year 2009 and he is unable to carry out any such business as he has no reasonably suitable premises to carry out this business. His son is also unemployed as he is running a STD/PCO from a shop measuring 5''x2'' and is earning very miserable income; the need of the petitioner for the aforenoted premises is thus bonafide which is for the purpose of running a business. Eviction petition was accordingly filed.

2 The averments made in the application seeking leave to defend have been perused. No triable issue has been raised. The averments made in this application are largely to the effect that this application had not been filed bonafide; the tenant has been depositing rent regularly; premises had been taken on rent by the tenant for a commercial purpose which is not which is not covered Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Code). This is largely what is contained in the application.

3 In view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, the distinction between residential and commercial premises has been given a goby and even if the premises are required bonafide by the petitioner for his business need a petitioner u/s 14(1)(e) of the DRCA is maintainable.

4 Unless and until a triable issue arises leave to defend cannot be granted in a mechanical manner. This has been reiterated by the Courts time and again. In Precision Steel and Engineering Works and Another Vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, the Apex Court has held:- 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.

No triable issue as aforenoted has been pointed out; triable issues have to be emanated from the pleadings of the parties i.e. necessarily from the application seeking leave to defend. No such triable issue has arisen. The landlord has been able to show his prima facie bonafide need for the aforenoted shop which is for the purpose of running a business as he having been retired from the Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year 2009 and now wishes to carry out his business; his son is also earning poultry income from a shop measuring 5''x2'' from where he is running STD/PCO. The landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. In this background the eviction petition having been decreed and the application seeking leave to defend having been dismissed suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.