Shamimuddin vs Babu Lal

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1 The impugned judgment is dated 17.08.2011 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord Babu Lal on the ground of bonafide requirement 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 dismissed. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord seeking eviction of his tenant Shamimuddin from a shop on the ground floor of property bearing No. 6445, Factory Road, Nabi Karim, Pahargunj, Delhi as depicted in red colour in the site plain. Monthly rent is Rs. 500/-. Premises had been let out to Babuddin father of the respondent and after his death, the present tenant has attorned in favour of the landlord. The petition has been filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. His contention is that his family comprises of himself, his wife, three sons and a daughter all of whom are dependent upon him for their livelihood. Contention is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturer of travel bags and school bags which he is carrying on from the last 20 years and presently the busing is being carried out from two rooms situated on the second floor of the aforenoted suit premises; this accommodation is highly insufficient and the petitioner is not able to expand his business. The suit premises is a shop on the ground floor which is now required by the petitioner for the sale of these school bags/travel bags which are being manufactured from the second floor; this shop on the ground floor will be suitable for the need of the petitioner and his sons who are carrying on the business together; accordingly the present eviction petition has been filed.

Averments made in the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend have been perused. Relationship of landlord-tenant has not been disputed. The contents of the eviction petition have by and large been reiterated; contention in the application seeking leave to defend is that this is a cooked up story and the need of the landlord is not in fact bonafide. The landlord is deliberately not accepting the rent in order that he can build up a ground for eviction; petition has been filed in an arbitrary fashion. This appears to be the gist of the application seeking leave to defend.

In this background, on no count can it be said that a triable issue has arisen.

In Precision Steel and Engineering Works and Another Vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, the Apex Court had noted that 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 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.

Unless and until a triable issue has arisen leave to defend cannot be granted; if this is done the very purpose and import of the Section 25-B of the DRCA will be given a go by; which was not the intent of the legislature.

The Supreme Court in Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan, had held in this context inter alia noted as:-

The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own.

7 It is also not in dispute that the premises have since been vacated and the possession of the same has been handed back to the landlord. In this background impugned order decreeing the petition and dismissing the leave to defend application filed by the tenant suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.