Vijay Kumar v. Puran Singh

1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) is filed impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 15.2.2013, by which the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant has been dismissed and eviction order has been passed with respect to the tenanted shop situated on the ground floor of the property bearing no. WZ-32/6, Sant Garh, New Delhi-110018 as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.C-1. 2014:DHC:4300

2. In order to obtain an eviction for bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act three aspects are required to be proved. Firstly, that there is existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Secondly, the landlord requires the tenanted premises for himself and/or for the need of his family members, and thirdly, the landlord has no other alternative suitable accommodation.

3. So far as the first aspect is concerned, it is not disputed that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The dispute is with respect to the claim of bonafide need and existence of alternative suitable premises. In the eviction petition, landlord has pleaded that he needs the premises to establish his three sons in business as also for expansion of his own business.

4. A reading of the leave to defend application shows that the petitioner/tenant does not dispute the aspect that the respondent/landlord needs to expand his business. Once there is no dispute on this aspect, the contents of the eviction petition are deemed to be admitted to this extent. Therefore, the respondent/landlord would have need of the suit/tenanted shop for expansion of his business.

5. The facts of the case are that there are a total of six shops in the premises of which one shop is on tenancy with the petitioner. Respondent/landlord has a total of three sons. Two shops were converted into one shop in which the respondent/landlord is carrying on his hardware and paints business and one of the sons of the respondent/landlord is helping him in this business. There is another shop in which the second son of the respondent/landlord is carrying on business of mobile shop. Out of the two other shops, one shop has been sold to one Dr. Sharma way back in the year 1995 and therefore, cannot be considered as an alternative suitable accommodation and with respect to the only remaining shop it is not the case in the leave to defend application of the petitioner/tenant that this shop has been let out recently to the tenant who is a scooter mechanic and therefore, this shop will also not be available to the respondent/landlord. The last shop is in the tenancy of the petitioner and with respect to which the eviction petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there is no bonafide need of the respondent/landlord because the petitioner has three sons of which two sons are already carrying on business and the third son is living abroad and for which purpose the counsel tried to refer to an application filed after filing of the leave to defend application in which it was stated that the third son was staying abroad. Besides the fact that the respondent/landlord has vehemently disputed that third son is staying abroad, it is now settled law that all facts requiring grant of leave to defend have necessarily to be stated within the 15 days statutory period fixed for filing of the leave to defend application, and, courts cannot consider additional facts, documents, affidavits etc which are filed beyond the 15 days period for filing of the leave to defend application inasmuch as Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15, has held that 15 days period is inflexible and which cannot be extended even by one day. Supreme Court has in fact observed that after the period of 15 days, there cannot be condonation of delay of even one day in filing of the leave to defend application. Effectively therefore the Supreme Court has held that no additional affidavit or additional document after the period of 15 days can be considered for grant of leave to defend and it is on this principle that a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ms. Madhu Gupta Vs. M/s Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd. 184 (2011) DLT 103 has held that there cannot be amendment to a leave to defend application after the period of 15 days so far as facts and circumstances which exist before the 15 days period, and which facts, circumstances and documents have necessarily to be pleaded/filed only within the 15 days period fixed for filing the leave to defend application. Accordingly, application and affidavits which are sought to be referred to on behalf of the petitioner filed beyond the period of 15 days cannot be referred to by this Court.

7. In view of the above, there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Petitioner requires that tenanted premises for business not only of his three sons but also for expanding his own business, and which aspect is not disputed in the leave to defend application.

8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

SEPTEMBER 01, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib