Diwan Chand v. Darshan Singh

1. This petition impugns an order of eviction passed on 19.08.2013 directing the eviction of the petitioner. Admittedly, leave to defend was filed after the statutory period of 15 days, hence, it could not be taken into consideration. The Trial Court reasoned that 2014:DHC:2111 the petition shall be deemed to have been admitted by the respondenttenant and that the landlord would be entitled to an order of eviction. Accordingly, the eviction order was passed with respect to the tenanted premises being mezzanine shop in property No. 70, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that de hors the application for leave to defend, the Trial Court would be required to satisfy itself of the merits of the eviction petition; that eviction order can be passed only after the Court is satisfied that the case for bona fide need is made out.

2. He relies upon the following judgments for the proposition that even if any compromise deed is filed between the tenant and the landlord apropos an agreement for eviction, the Court would still be required to satisfy itself that the ground for eviction is made out: (1)Smt. Srimathi Kaushalya Devi & Ors. v. Shri K.L. Bansal

(2)Precision Steel & Engineering Works v. Prem Deva Niranajan Dev Tayal (1982) 3 SCC 270;and (3)Surjeet Singh Kalra v. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 87

3. He submits that in the present case, the Court did not consider the facts of the eviction petition and has not decided it on its merits. He also relies upon Swami Krishnanand Govindanand v. M.D. Oswal Hosiery (Regd.) (2002) 3 SCC 39 to contend that even where the ground of eviction is admitted, the Court would still be required to satisfy itself of the bona fide need; in the absence of material to support the alleged need to the satisfaction of the Court, an order of eviction cannot be passed. However, this Court is of the view that in the present circumstances the tenant’s documents and pleas could not be considered since they do not come in the realm and zone of consideration. This would be possible only if the tenant had file the application for leave to defend within the prescribed statutory period of 15 days as proved in the summary proceedings under section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Insofar as tenant failed to reach the portal of the Court in the time prescribed he would have no defence against and objection to the eviction petition filed by the landlord.

4. Be that as it may, the Court notices that in paragraphs No. 3 and 4, the Trial Court has dealt with the grounds for the eviction petition which read as under: “3.Petitioner Sh.Darshan Singh has filed his petition seeking eviction of tenant/respondent Sh. Diwan Chand from tenanted premises i.e. tailor shop with mezzanine in property no.70, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi, admeasuring 12 ft. x 11 ft. stating that the premises comprising one shop with mezzanine had been let out to tenant for running his tailoring shop upon monthly rent of Rs.1500/- per month, excluding electricity charges. He has further stated that property no. 70, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi 110029 measuring about 200 sq. yds. Situated in Khasra No. 71, 146 of Revenue Estate of Humayunpur, New Delhi-29 was originally owned by his father late Sh. Pritam Singh, S/o Late Sukhdev Singh and his father at the time of his demise left behind a duly registered Will registered as document no. 1881 in additional book no. 3, Volume no. 220, pages 87 to 88, in the office of Sub-Registrar, New Delhi on 03.08.1982, bequeathing the property to him and his brother Sh. Gurnam Singh in equal shares which has been mutated in their names in the record of MCD, R.K. Puram, Sector IX, New Delhi, vide mutation letter no. TAX/RKP/SAU/2435 dated 16.03.2005. Respondent is stated to be an old tenant in the original property inherited by petitioner and his brother from their father and by means of partition deed dated 28.06.2010, property no. 70, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi has been mutually partitioned between them into two separate portions of 100 sq. yds. each and the portion of property admeasuring 100 sq. yds. Adjoining property no. 69, Arjun Nagar has fallen in his share which has been shown in blue in the site plan. The tenanted shop forming portion of property no. 70, Arjun Nagar fell in his share and respondent having become his tenant started paying rent to him.

4. Petitioner has sought respondent’s eviction from the tenanted premises stating that after his retirement from Delhi Transport Corporation w.e.f. 31.08.2012 he intends to start an electrical shop for gainfully employing himself by opening an electrical spare parts and repair shop dealing in electrical items and works and his wife may also help and assist him or carry on her own work from the demised premises for running their small time business/shop as part of their self-employment. Petitioner has also mentioned that his son is a qualified Graphic Designer and holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Fine Arts whose work profile primarily involves working on computer and designing books, magazine etc. which can be carried out by his son from the shop/tenanted premises bearing no.70, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi.”

5. This Court is of the view that insofar as the aforesaid grounds were not challenged by the tenant since he did not file the application for leave to defend within the statutory period, there existed no ground to disbelieve the averments in the eviction petition. The Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

“when a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide.” Section 25-B(4) of the Act provides that “the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order of eviction on the ground aforesaid.”

6. In the absence of any controversion of the landlord-petitioner, the clear stipulation of Section 25-B of the Act and the dicta of the Supreme Court as aforesaid, the eviction order was rightly passed.

7. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed as being without merit.

NAJMI WAZIRI (JUDGE) APRIL 22, 2014