Kishori Lal v. Ram Saran

1. This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) impugns the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 9.5.2011 by which leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant has been rejected and the eviction petition has been decreed.

2. Eviction petition was filed with respect to one shop on the ground floor of the property bearing no.102, Village Ghondali, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. Respondent/landlord stated that he was a driver in DTC and 2014:DHC:3406 he has retired and he needs the suit premises for doing business by himself and/or his sons Sh. Shakti and Sh. Pintoo whose financial position is not good.

3. On behalf of the petitioner, leave to defend was prayed for on two main counts. Firstly, it was stated that the son of the petitioner Sh. Shakti is doing the business of property dealing in Krishna Nagar and therefore the need of Sh. Shakti cannot be considered. The second aspect which was urged was that there are a total of six godowns and one shop in the property in question on the ground floor and three godowns/shops on the ground floor are lying vacant which are alternative suitable accommodation to the respondent/landlord.

4. The aforesaid two points which were emphatically canvassed before this Court also on behalf of the petitioner/tenant have no substance and are rejected for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. So far as the aspect that one son of the respondent/landlord Sh. Shakti is carrying on the business of property dealing in a self-owned shop in Krishna Nagar is concerned, the Additional Rent Controller has rightly rejected this argument because the address of the shop and the details of the shop are not provided. In my opinion, the averment of alternative accommodation must be specific with respect to a property number because it is very easy otherwise for a tenant to make self-serving averment and claim that there arises a triable issue on that basis. In my opinion, this sort of stand on behalf of the tenant giving a vague averment without providing details of the address of the alleged shop of one son Sh. Shakti is without any substance and was accordingly rightly rejected by the Additional Rent Controller and is also rejected by this Court.

6. I would also like to observe that even if one son Sh. Shakti is carrying on business in Krishna Nagar that would be irrelevant to the fact of bonafide necessity of the landlord/respondent himself who says that he wants to carry out the business in the said shop after his retirement from DTC. The respondent/landlord has also pleaded bonafide necessity of his other son Pintoo. Therefore, even assuming the other son Sh. Shakti has a shop in Krishna Nagar bonafide need will exist so far as respondent/landlord and his other son Sh. Pintoo.

7. The second argument which was urged before this Court was that the respondent has three godowns in the same premises which are vacant and which are alternative suitable accommodation. In this regard, in the reply given to the application for leave to defend, the respondent/landlord has stated that out of the six godowns, two godowns are with Shiv Tent House, two godowns are with Khurana Tent House and the remaining two godowns are with Sudhanshu Tent House and Regal Tent House each. Therefore, the respondent/landlord has given the particulars of tenants with respect to each of the godowns, and therefore such godowns cannot be said to be alternative suitable accommodation because three of them are not lying vacant as is being urged before this Court.

8. The Additional Rent Controller has rightly noted that once the respondent/landlord filed reply to the leave to defend application giving details of tenants in three godowns, petitioner/tenant was bound to file a rejoinder denying this aspect but the petitioner/tenant did not file any rejoinder. The Additional Rent Controller therefore held that there was no triable issue because there are no vacant godowns in the premises in which the suit shop is located.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally sought to argue that the respondent/landlord should have given details of all the godowns with him, however, I do not agree with this argument because in an eviction petition, the landlord has only to state that how he has no other alternative suitable accommodation and he need not give details of each and every property belonging to him. Whether or not a particular property as stated in the leave to defend application is an alternative accommodation will and can be dealt with by the landlord while filing reply to the leave to defend application and which was done in this case and as noted by the Additional Rent Controller, the petitioner/tenant did not file any rejoinder to contest his position.

10. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JULY 22, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne