Kumar Sushobhan v. Kamla Jain

1. By the impugned judgment, the leave to defend application of the respondent/tenant has been allowed inter alia on the following grounds:- “…..Fifthly, the petitioner and his wife are actually residing at Flat No.21, T.T. Marg, Panchkuian Road, New Delhi as the petitioner is employed with Lady Harding Hospital and the said accommodation is sufficient to meet the requirement of the petitioner. Sixthly, the petitioner had purchased property no.220, which is the adjoining property to the tenanted premises comprising of ground floor, first floor and second floor. The said property is lying vacant and therefore, there is no bonafide requirement of the petitioner in respect of the tenanted premises. The petitioner is also owner of property no.E-1361-B, 46, Shiv Ram Park, Nangloi where the petitioner is carrying on business and upper floors of the said property 2014:DHC:3251 comprising of first floor and second floor are available with the petitioner. Seventhly, the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyawati Sood is per incurium as it has been delivered without considering the judgment delivered by the said court in the case of “A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak”, AIR 1984 S.C. 718. It is further stated that the respondent had also filed an application U/s 151 CPC on 07.12.2012 for taking into consideration subsequent events as during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner had been successful in getting eviction order against his brother Roshan Lal in respect of one room and store situated on ground floor of the property in question. Therefore, the entire ground floor of the property in question is in possession of the petitioner and there is no bonafide requirement in respect of the tenanted premises. On the other hand, it is stated in the written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier filed five eviction petitions against his tenants in respect of the tenanted premises and in four eviction petitions, the petitioner had been successful in getting eviction orders. The petitioner requires the tenanted premises as his family consists of the petitioner himself, his wife, three minor sons, one brother, two widow sisters, two grandsons, three granddaughters. The averments made in application for leave to defend, filed on behalf of respondent have been denied. The court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has given vague reply with regard to specific averments of the respondent regarding availability of alternative accommodations i.e. Property No.220, Katra Pehran, Tilak Bazar, Khari Baoli, Delhi Property No.E- 1, 361-B, 46, Shiv Ram Park, Nangloi and the ground floor of the property in question which has been got vacated from other tenants. He has also given vague reply regarding averment of being in occupation of government accommodation i.e. Flat No.21, T.T. Marg, Panchkuian Road, New Delhi. Moreover, there is a dispute regarding correctness of site plan, filed by the petitioner. The truth/veracity and falsehood of the pleadings between parties and disputed questions of facts, as aforementioned, can only be decided during trial. Therefore, the application for leave to defend filed on behalf of the respondent is allowed.”

2. I have gone through the reply filed by the present petitioner/landlord to the application for leave to defend and I note that except stating that the contents of the application for leave to defend are wrong and denied no particulars whatsoever have been given.

3. In my opinion, the reply to leave to defend application is an apology for a reply to an important application such as one for leave to defend. In order to understand the frivolous/inadequate nature of the reply, I am reproducing below the entire reply filed to the leave to defend application:- “1. That the contents of para 1 of the application are matter of record.

2. That the contents of para 2 of the application are matter of record. 2(A). That the contents of para 2(A) of the application are wrong and are denied. 2(B). That the contents of para 2(B) of the application are wrong 2(C). That the contents of para 2(C) of the application are wrong 2(D). That the contents of para 2(D) of the application are wrong 2(E). That the contents of para 2(E) of the application are wrong 2(F) That the contents of para 2(F) of the application are wrong 2(G). That the contents of para 2(G) of the application are wrong 2(H). That the contents of para 2(H) of the application are wrong REPLY TO PRELIMINARY LEGAL SUBMISSIONS:- That it is submitted that the judgment in Smt. Satyawati Sood’s case decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the case of the petitioner is absolutely covering and in the light of the said judgment the petitioner has filed the present petition. It is further submitted that until and unless the said judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is overruled the plea taken by the respondent is non-est. It is further submitted that under the same facts and circumstances one of the court of the similar jurisdiction has decided the eviction petition filed by the petitioner in his favour.

3. That the contents of para No.3 of the application are wrong and denied. The respondent is not entitled to leave to appear and contest the eviction petition. The prayer clause of the application is wrong and denied being false, frivolous and misconceived and hence needs not consideration by this Hon’ble Court. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the application under reply may kindly be dismissed with costs.”

4. In view of the above, it is clear that there is no illegality in the impugned order granting leave to defend. The present petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JULY 14, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne