Full Text
Translation output
t4 f
--7
IN THE HIGII COURT OF
RC.REV. rssl2}lr
VINEET ASRI
Through:
DELHI AT NEW DEL}II..... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Kapoor, Advocate
VCISUS
SM'f KAUSI-IALYA DEVI & ANR ..... Respondents
'fhrough: Mr. Jugal Wadhwa & Mr. Rishabh Wadhwa, Advocates
--7
IN THE HIGII COURT OF
RC.REV. rssl2}lr
VINEET ASRI
Through:
DELHI AT NEW DEL}II..... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Kapoor, Advocate
VCISUS
SM'f KAUSI-IALYA DEVI & ANR ..... Respondents
'fhrough: Mr. Jugal Wadhwa & Mr. Rishabh Wadhwa, Advocates
CORAM:
IION'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
09.09.2011
I have heard thc counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Thc undisputed position is that the lespondents' family comprises of six members which includes respondent no. 1 and her husband, their son, respondent no. 2 and his wife and their one son and one dauglrter. 'I'he accomrnodation in their possession admittedly is of three roonls on the ground floor and one room on the tliird floor of property bearing no. J-33, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and in that ploperty the petitioner is tenant on the first.floor. 'fhe respondents had sought his eviction florn the premises in his occupation on the ground of their bona fide requirernent of the salne. The petitioner-tenant had sought leave to defend the eviction petition on the ground that the accommodation already in possession of the respondents-Iandlords is mole than sufficient.
'fhe learned trial Court has disrnissed the application of the petitioner- tenant seeking leave to defend the eviction petition vide irnpugned order by observing that even consideling whatever accommodation the petitioner-tenant was claiming to be in possession of the respondents-landlords their requirement for tlre acconrmodation in his premises ,uvas still justificd and bona fide.
.J
"h t
RC.REV. 1ss/201t Pase I of3
2011:DHC:16014
I
Lealned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has argued that many triable issues had been laised by him in his leave to defend application which could not be rejected surnrnarily as has been done by the tlial Court.
The learned tlial Court has dealt with the pleas of the petitioner-tenant in pala no. 2 of the impugned order r.vhich is leproduced below:-
I hcn,e hecu'd the sthnissions as fcrr us the pLu'pose of letting, the size of the family of the petitioncr and the crccontntodation available trith the pctitioner as shotvn in their site plan is not clisputed by the respondent. The respondent has claimed that ltetitioner has concealed the dressing cum bathroorn on the g'otmd Jloor (tput't f"om that a storc room anc{ one room on seconclfloor. Even if all these 3 nre consiclered to be available to the petilioner thotrgh is disputed, the same does not give any extrct accotttmodation to the petitioner since the dressing cunt bctthroont cctnnot be uscd as a be&'oont or dr"awing roonx ctnd a dining roont which are the requiremcnt o.f the petitioner. The availctbility of the WC and a store roont are of no conseclttences. As far as availability of a room nrcasu'ing 50x19 feet on the second/loor is conccrnetl though the petitioner the sqme still rentains insfficient if t'e includc the roonx on the sccond floor in lhe ctccontmodalion availctble to the petitioner. T'hey will hat'e for.u' ltetlroonts, three on the ground floor ancl one on the .second floor at their tlisposal apart f'om dratting cunt dining roont on the grouncl floor. Let us consider the genuine requirentent of the petitioner viz-a-viz the size of their family. Petitioner no'2 the mother along with her husband requires one bedroont, petitioner no.2 and his wtfe retluires one bedroom, the grown up son of 22 years old and a daughter of 2l yecu's of age requires lwo separate hetlroonts since at this grou,n up oge they cu'e not sttltpose to sleep in a roont only to accotnntodate the tenanl. T'he cu'gtnttents of the counsel for the respondent that the dauglztcr is of marriugectble age has no force since not only that the Cou't hcrs lo consider the size of the fantily as on today but ctlso the reason that the Cow"t has to consider the size of the fantily as on today but also for the reuson thqt the requirenrcnt of a maniccl daughters also cqnnot be ignored. T'he petitioner no.2 ulso requires at least one bedrponz for her three ntarriecl clcntghtet's v,ho admittedly ure resicling in Delhi itself and ntust be visiting their parents ntay be once in a while. Thc petitioners also rcquire at least one gtrest roonl, one dining roont and dratt'ing roont and cannot be asked to adjust only in three bedroonts and u &'awing nu.mz dining roonx only for uccontntodating the tenant. T'hottgh there is no force in the contention of the counsel for the respondent that an enquiry to be conclucted u/s 25-B(7) of DRC Act but if I consider thctt all the submissions ntude in the lecne to defend application in respect of
{
RC.REV.155/2011 Page 2 of3 u a the concecrlment of tlte property by the petitioncr as cotect, the setne also cloes not give any benefit to the respondent as petitioner recpires at least five bedroonts, a guest roonl, ct drawing room and a dining roont i.e., at least eight rooms v,hereas even as per the case of the respondent there are only fotu' rooms available to the petitioner. In facts there are no grounds on v'hich respondent is enlilled to leave to defend. Sarne thet'efore is dismissed uncl un eviction order is passed in respect o.f the suit properly i.e. entire first floor of the propcrty no. J-33, Rctjouri Gru'den, New Delhi, ntore speciully shou,n in red in the sitc plun now exhibil as Ex.CI. T'he order shall not be executable for a period of 6 ntonths f"om today. File be consigned to Record
Roonl. "
Considering the family strength of the respondents and the accomrnodation available r.vith them on the glound floor as well as on the second floor as noticed by 1he trial Coult in above cluoted parqa of the irnpugned order', , I find no infinnity ol perversity in the irnpugned order of the leamed Additional
Rent Controller declining lcave to contest to the petitioner justifying any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
This rcvision petition is accordingly dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 09, Z0lllpg
BHASIN, J
RC.REV. 155/20il Pase 3 of 3
09.09.2011
I have heard thc counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Thc undisputed position is that the lespondents' family comprises of six members which includes respondent no. 1 and her husband, their son, respondent no. 2 and his wife and their one son and one dauglrter. 'I'he accomrnodation in their possession admittedly is of three roonls on the ground floor and one room on the tliird floor of property bearing no. J-33, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and in that ploperty the petitioner is tenant on the first.floor. 'fhe respondents had sought his eviction florn the premises in his occupation on the ground of their bona fide requirernent of the salne. The petitioner-tenant had sought leave to defend the eviction petition on the ground that the accommodation already in possession of the respondents-Iandlords is mole than sufficient.
'fhe learned trial Court has disrnissed the application of the petitioner- tenant seeking leave to defend the eviction petition vide irnpugned order by observing that even consideling whatever accommodation the petitioner-tenant was claiming to be in possession of the respondents-landlords their requirement for tlre acconrmodation in his premises ,uvas still justificd and bona fide.
.J
"h t
RC.REV. 1ss/201t Pase I of3
2011:DHC:16014
I
Lealned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has argued that many triable issues had been laised by him in his leave to defend application which could not be rejected surnrnarily as has been done by the tlial Court.
The learned tlial Court has dealt with the pleas of the petitioner-tenant in pala no. 2 of the impugned order r.vhich is leproduced below:-
I hcn,e hecu'd the sthnissions as fcrr us the pLu'pose of letting, the size of the family of the petitioncr and the crccontntodation available trith the pctitioner as shotvn in their site plan is not clisputed by the respondent. The respondent has claimed that ltetitioner has concealed the dressing cum bathroorn on the g'otmd Jloor (tput't f"om that a storc room anc{ one room on seconclfloor. Even if all these 3 nre consiclered to be available to the petilioner thotrgh is disputed, the same does not give any extrct accotttmodation to the petitioner since the dressing cunt bctthroont cctnnot be uscd as a be&'oont or dr"awing roonx ctnd a dining roont which are the requiremcnt o.f the petitioner. The availctbility of the WC and a store roont are of no conseclttences. As far as availability of a room nrcasu'ing 50x19 feet on the second/loor is conccrnetl though the petitioner the sqme still rentains insfficient if t'e includc the roonx on the sccond floor in lhe ctccontmodalion availctble to the petitioner. T'hey will hat'e for.u' ltetlroonts, three on the ground floor ancl one on the .second floor at their tlisposal apart f'om dratting cunt dining roont on the grouncl floor. Let us consider the genuine requirentent of the petitioner viz-a-viz the size of their family. Petitioner no'2 the mother along with her husband requires one bedroont, petitioner no.2 and his wtfe retluires one bedroom, the grown up son of 22 years old and a daughter of 2l yecu's of age requires lwo separate hetlroonts since at this grou,n up oge they cu'e not sttltpose to sleep in a roont only to accotnntodate the tenanl. T'he cu'gtnttents of the counsel for the respondent that the dauglztcr is of marriugectble age has no force since not only that the Cou't hcrs lo consider the size of the fantily as on today but ctlso the reason that the Cow"t has to consider the size of the fantily as on today but also for the reuson thqt the requirenrcnt of a maniccl daughters also cqnnot be ignored. T'he petitioner no.2 ulso requires at least one bedrponz for her three ntarriecl clcntghtet's v,ho admittedly ure resicling in Delhi itself and ntust be visiting their parents ntay be once in a while. Thc petitioners also rcquire at least one gtrest roonl, one dining roont and dratt'ing roont and cannot be asked to adjust only in three bedroonts and u &'awing nu.mz dining roonx only for uccontntodating the tenant. T'hottgh there is no force in the contention of the counsel for the respondent that an enquiry to be conclucted u/s 25-B(7) of DRC Act but if I consider thctt all the submissions ntude in the lecne to defend application in respect of
{
RC.REV.155/2011 Page 2 of3 u a the concecrlment of tlte property by the petitioncr as cotect, the setne also cloes not give any benefit to the respondent as petitioner recpires at least five bedroonts, a guest roonl, ct drawing room and a dining roont i.e., at least eight rooms v,hereas even as per the case of the respondent there are only fotu' rooms available to the petitioner. In facts there are no grounds on v'hich respondent is enlilled to leave to defend. Sarne thet'efore is dismissed uncl un eviction order is passed in respect o.f the suit properly i.e. entire first floor of the propcrty no. J-33, Rctjouri Gru'den, New Delhi, ntore speciully shou,n in red in the sitc plun now exhibil as Ex.CI. T'he order shall not be executable for a period of 6 ntonths f"om today. File be consigned to Record
Roonl. "
Considering the family strength of the respondents and the accomrnodation available r.vith them on the glound floor as well as on the second floor as noticed by 1he trial Coult in above cluoted parqa of the irnpugned order', , I find no infinnity ol perversity in the irnpugned order of the leamed Additional
Rent Controller declining lcave to contest to the petitioner justifying any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
This rcvision petition is accordingly dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 09, Z0lllpg
BHASIN, J
RC.REV. 155/20il Pase 3 of 3
JUDGMENT