Dr. S.S. Mann vs A.K. Sharma

Jaswant Singh, J.—The petitioner/tenant was inducted as a tenant by the respondent owner-cum-landlord in the demised premises

comprising residential house bearing No. 606, Sector 14, Urban Estate-Gurgaon, vide lease deed dated 22.11.2004 at the rent of Rs. 9,000/- per

month. The lease deed initially was for a period of 7 months which was subsequently extended from time to time. Subsequently, in June 2006, the

ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises was filed on the grounds of

non-payment of rent since November 2005, personal necessity and change of user. It was stated that the landlord, who was residing along with his

wife at Delhi, after his retirement wanted to shift to his bigger house at Gurgaon i.e. demised premises. It was also stated that the demised premises

was for residential purpose wherein in some portion, the tenant was concededly operating business of import and export. The tenant contested the

eviction application however, admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant, and the learned Rent Controller, Gurgaon vide order dated

29.08.2006 passed order of provisional assessment of rent @ Rs. 9,000/- per month payable for the 7 months with effect from November 2005

along with interest as Rs. 1680/- and costs amounting to Rs. 1500/- total amounting to Rs. 66,180/- to be paid by 13.09.2006. The tenant

submitted a cheque of the aforesaid amount on the stipulated date of hearing, however, the cheque got dishonored and the landlord moved an

application seeking the striking off the defence of the tenant. In view of the non-payment of arrears of provisional rent, the application was allowed

and the defence was struck off vide order dated 06.02.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Gurgaon and the same was upheld in the civil

revision No. 1489 of 2007 filed by the tenant before this Court vide order dated 17.10.2008. The SLP filed against the said order was also

dismissed.

Thereafter, the landlord led his evidence with due opportunity for cross-examination by the tenant and on the basis of evidence on record, the

learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 14.06.2011, allowed the ejectment application of the tenant on all the three aforesaid grounds taken in

the eviction application and ordered the tenant to hand over the possession within one month. The tenant filed appeal and the same was also

dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 21.02.2012, and upheld the findings returned by the Learned Rent Controller,

Gurgaon.

Hence the present revision.

Learned counsel for the tenant has argued that as per the provision of Section 13(3) Clause (a) and Sub-Clause (i) of the Haryana Urban

(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (For short the Act) the landlord had taken the plea that he requires the demised premises for his own

occupation and is not occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned and thus the ingredients of Section 13 Sub-Section (3)

Clause (a)(i) of the Act cannot be held to be proved entitling the respondent-landlord to seek eviction, more so, in view of the specific objection

taken to that effect in the written statement filed by the tenant. In support, he cites Gurbaj Singh Vs. Parshotam Singh and Others, & Bhatia Cloth

House Vs. Dr. Raj Kumar Gupta and Another,

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has argued that the objection taken in the written statement cannot be referred to,

in view of the defence being struck off. He further submits that although the aforesaid ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) were specifically pleaded.

However, they were made good in the evidence of the landlord, wherein in his cross-examination he specifically said that he did not own any

property in the urban area of Gurgaon. The other property to be owned is concededly in the name of wife of the landlord.

It is further submitted that besides the compliance of the ingredients made good in the evidence, no prejudice has been caused to the tenant,

since admittedly the landlord does not own any other property in the urban area of Gurgaon, whereas by way of positive evidence, it has been

established that it is the tenant, who owns a residential house as discussed in para 13 of the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority

which reads as under:-

As regard, contention that there is no bonafide necessity of the respondent. Respondent has pleaded in the petition in Para No. 8(C) that he wants

to shift from Delhi to the premises in question with his family members. The reply of the appellant is that respondent having an another residential

house in Gurgaon and led evidence and examined himself as PW 1 and submitted his affidavit Ex. PW 1/A in his examination-in-chief. His cross-

examination has been thwarted as a whole, but noting incriminating has come out against the version of the respondent, since it has become clear

that another Kothi in Section- 14 stands in the name of wife of the respondent, which is under dispute. The respondent had retired for the past

seven years from Insurance company Delhi. Now he is representing LPG Commercial (Pvt. Limited)

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the opinion that present petition is devoid of any merit

and deserves to be dismissed. As is evident from the facts stated above, as well as from the admitted position amongst the parties that the landlord

himself does not own any other property in his name and in fact it is his wife who owns the property, it cannot be said that there was any

concealment of fact by landlord.

It is cardinal principle of law that technicalities are handmaids of justice and they should not be hindrance in imparting substantial justice. In the

present case, it has not been shown by learned Counsel for the tenant as to how any prejudice has been caused to him by non-pleading of the

ingredients as referred by him in his arguments. No doubt, the pleading of all the ingredients are necessary for any person to seek relief, but at the

same time if the party leads positive evidence to prove a certain ingredient, although not pleaded then the Court cannot thrown him away on mere

technicalities, if it is otherwise proved that no prejudice has been caused to him. I find support from Bhatia Cloth House Vs. Dr. Raj Kumar Gupta

and Another, and Gurbaj Singh Vs. Parshotam Singh and Others, . In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the landlord

has been able to succeed in his case and consequently, no infirmity is found in the orders passed by the Authorities below. As far as the judgments

cited by learned Counsel for the tenant are concerned, there is no doubt on the proposition of law discussed in them, but same are distinguishable

on their facts as well as the principle of law discussed above.

In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.