Praga Industries Pvt Ltd. vs Manohar Lal Kapur

Indermeet Kaur, J.—The impugned judgment is dated 06.07.2010; the eviction petition filed by the landlord u/s 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed. The application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant had been declined. The disputed premises have been described as flat No. 491, first floor, ward No. 14, Bartan Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.

Record shows that an eviction petition has been filed by the landlord against his tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement; contention being that the premises are required by the petitioner for himself and his family members who are dependent upon him; he is owner of the premises. Premises are required by the petitioner for starting the business of his son Ajay Kapoor who is living on rent at flat No. 303, PWO Housing Complex, Section-43, Gurgaon along with his father; the family of the petitioner comprises of himself, his wife, two sons and three married daughters; elder son is Sanjay Kapoor and the younger son is Ajay Kapoor; he is yet to be married. The petitioner has only two properties in Delhi i.e. the property in dispute and shop No. 492, ground floor, ward No. 14, Bartan Market, Sadar Bazar; this second premises is in possession of another tenant; present premises is required by the petitioner for enabling his son Ajay Kapoor to carry on his business who is presently working with the Unitech but he wants to start his own business; for the aforenoted reason, the eviction petition has been filed.

Leave to defend has been filed and the averments contained therein have been perused. No triable issue has arisen. Averments made in this application are to the effect that prior to filing of the eviction, the landlord had approached the tenant and had asked him to purchase the property for Rs.7 lacs; he was also seeking enhancement of rent from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,500/- per month which was not agreeable to the tenant; on one pretext or the other, the petitioner/landlord seeks eviction of his tenant and his need is not bonafide; bald submission has also been made that a property bearing No. 27-D, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi which is a two and half storeyed built up was partly owned by the father of the petitioner and after his death, the petitioner has inherited a part of it; further contention being that the need of the landlord is not clear; whether he requires the premises for the residence or for the business purpose of his son Ajay Kapoor has not been clearly deciphered; moreover, it is not in dispute that Ajay Kapoor is presently working with Unitech company.

Corresponding paras of the reply filed by the landlord to this application have also been perused. It is vehemently reiterated that Ajay Kapoor seeks to carry on his own business which is of real estate from the aforenoted premises; presently he is working in a real estate company namely Unitech and he is qualified in the business of real estate; it has vehemently been denied that property No. D-27, Kamla Nagar is in any manner connected to the petitioner; contention being that this is the property of Vijay Kapoor, the brother of the petitioner and the present petitioner has no right, title or interest in the said property.

These are the only issues which have been raised; they in no manner can be said to be triable issues. The landlord has clearly made out a case of bonafide need; he has two sons and as noted supra, he is living in a rented accommodation in Gurgaon; his son is working in the Unitech which is a real estate company; Ajay Kapoor is 36 years of age; it would probably be the right age to venture out to start his own business; eviction petition has clearly deciphered that this need of the petitioner is for the business house of his son Ajay Kapoor; there is no confusion; it has been denied that this premises is required for any residential purpose.

The submission of the tenant that triable issues have arisen and the petitioner is only seeking enhancement of rent and the landlord has in fact approached the tenant to purchase the property can in no manner be said to be issues for which a trial is required.

In Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan, it was held that the landlord is the best Judge of his requirement and Courts have no concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. The bona fide personal need is a question of fact and should not normally be interfered with.

Unless and until, a triable issue arises, leave to defend should not be granted in a routine or a mechanical manner.

In Shri Nem Chand Daga Vs. Shri Inder Mohan Singh Rana, a Bench of this Court had noted as under:-

That before leave to defend is granted, the respondent must show that some triable issues which disentitle the applicant from getting the order of eviction against the respondent and at the same time entitled the respondent to leave to defend existed. The onus is prima facie on the respondent and if he fails, the eviction follows.

The application seeking leave to defend had clearly raised no triable issue.

In this factual scenario, the eviction petition having decreed and the application seeking leave to defend having been declined by the impugned order suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.