Full Text
Translation output
i t i HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV. 151/2015
DEVINDERKHATRI
Through
RC.REV. 151/2015
DEVINDERKHATRI
Through
VERSUS
PREM LATA
Through
Through
RC.REV. 169/2015
DAVINDERKHATRI
Through
DAVINDERKHATRI
Through
VERSUS
PREM LATA
Through Petitioner Mr. Parag Chawla and Mr. Aman Kalra, Advs.
Respondent Mr. Prem Bhushan Dewan and Ms.Gurjeet Kaur, Advs.
Petitioner Mr. Parag Chawla and Mr. Aman Kalra, Advs.
Respondent Mr. Prem Bhushan Dewan and Ms.Gurjeet Kaur, Advs.
Through Petitioner Mr. Parag Chawla and Mr. Aman Kalra, Advs.
Respondent Mr. Prem Bhushan Dewan and Ms.Gurjeet Kaur, Advs.
Petitioner Mr. Parag Chawla and Mr. Aman Kalra, Advs.
Respondent Mr. Prem Bhushan Dewan and Ms.Gurjeet Kaur, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
31.03.2016 The petitioner Devinder Khatri is aggrieved by the order dated
29.11.2014 vide which the two eviction petitions No. 61/2013 &
04/2014 filed by the landlady Prem Lata qua the two suit premises i.e.
N-324 & N-325, Mangol Puri, Delhi seeking eviction of the tenant
Devinder Khatri from the said premises had been decreed in her favour. The application seeking leave to defend fded by the tenant stood declined.
31.03.2016 The petitioner Devinder Khatri is aggrieved by the order dated
29.11.2014 vide which the two eviction petitions No. 61/2013 &
04/2014 filed by the landlady Prem Lata qua the two suit premises i.e.
N-324 & N-325, Mangol Puri, Delhi seeking eviction of the tenant
Devinder Khatri from the said premises had been decreed in her favour. The application seeking leave to defend fded by the tenant stood declined.
RC.REV. 151/2015 & R.C. REV. No.169/2015 Page 1 of?
2016:DHC:9335 Record discloses that the eviction petitions had been filed by the landlady Prem Lata who in terms of Will dated 19.12.2004 of her deceased husband (Desh Raj) had become the owner of the suit premises. In these eviction petitions, it has been stated that she has three shops on the ground floor of the premises bearing No. N-323.
All these shops are in the possession of three different tenants. There are three shops in property No. N-325 and except one shop which is beneath the staircase, the other two shops are also with the tenants.
The need ofthe petitionerfor premisesNo. N-324 is the need to set up a business for her daughter who along with her husband is presently living in Nangloi in a rented house but since the daughter is dependent upon her parents for her need for accommodation and the landlady wants her daughter to settle well in life. The need of this shop (N-324) is the need for her daughter in order that her daughter and her husband can run a confectionary/halwai business which they are already carrying out from the rented shop. Her daughter has three grown up children and their need is also growing. Her daughter and son-in-law have no other reasonably suitable accommodation for carrying out this business. The need of premises No. N-324 is thus bonafide.
In the corresponding eviction petition, the need is for premise
No. N-325, Mangol Puri and this premises is required by the landlady for her elder son Rajinder Kumar who is married and presently privately employed; he would carry outthebusiness of confectionary.
2016:DHC:9335 Record discloses that the eviction petitions had been filed by the landlady Prem Lata who in terms of Will dated 19.12.2004 of her deceased husband (Desh Raj) had become the owner of the suit premises. In these eviction petitions, it has been stated that she has three shops on the ground floor of the premises bearing No. N-323.
All these shops are in the possession of three different tenants. There are three shops in property No. N-325 and except one shop which is beneath the staircase, the other two shops are also with the tenants.
The need ofthe petitionerfor premisesNo. N-324 is the need to set up a business for her daughter who along with her husband is presently living in Nangloi in a rented house but since the daughter is dependent upon her parents for her need for accommodation and the landlady wants her daughter to settle well in life. The need of this shop (N-324) is the need for her daughter in order that her daughter and her husband can run a confectionary/halwai business which they are already carrying out from the rented shop. Her daughter has three grown up children and their need is also growing. Her daughter and son-in-law have no other reasonably suitable accommodation for carrying out this business. The need of premises No. N-324 is thus bonafide.
In the corresponding eviction petition, the need is for premise
No. N-325, Mangol Puri and this premises is required by the landlady for her elder son Rajinder Kumar who is married and presently privately employed; he would carry outthebusiness of confectionary.
RC.REV. 151/2015 & R.C. REV. No.169/2015
He also has a family of two children; his wife has expired. The shop
No. N-325 is accordingly required by the landlady in order that her son Rajinder who is presently earning onlyRs.4,500/- per month from a private job can carry out this business.
The landlady is getting pension of Rs.1,000/- per month. She wants to settle her children and earn mental peace during her life time in order they are well established in their lives. Neither her daughter and nor her son have any other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation for this business.
The application seeking leave to defend has been filed in both the petitions. Common arguments have beenaddressed by the counsel for the tenant. The first and foremost submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the daughter who is admittedly married is not a resident of Delhi; she is living in Jammu. This submission has not been stated in the application seeking leave to defend. In the application seeking leave to defend, there is no dispute raised about the residence of the daughter. Vide separate detailed order of today, the application seeking permission of this Court to place on record an additional document which is a document relating to the residential status of the son-in-law of the landlady purportedly being to the effect that the son-in-law of the landlady is a resident of
Jammu and so also his wife is an argument dealt with in detail and rejected. The additional document sought to be placed on record at this stage is not permissible as no such submission has been made in the application seeking leave to defend. The submission of the learned f counsel for the petitioner that these subsequent events would in fact elicit the controversy between the parties is a submission which cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. The summary procedure contained in Section 14 (l)(e) of the DRCA stipulates the period of 15 days for filing an application seeking leave to defend which had admittedly been filed in the instant case but no issue was raised about the residential status of the daughter or the son-in-law of the landlady. This so called subsequent event was an information well known to the tenant even at the time when he filed his application seeking leave to defend. It cannot therefore be termed as a
'subsequent event'. This document has already been declined and cannot be taken on record.
Thus the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the daughter of the landlady is a resident of Jammu and not of Delhi cannot be considered.
The application seeking leave to defend in both the petitions does not in any manner raise any triable issue. In the application seeking leave to defend qua property No. N-324, it has not been disputed that the landlady has a married daughter and is carrying on confectionary business from a rented accommodation. The fact that she has three grown up children and is carrying out the business from a rented accommodation is admitted. The need of the landlady to allow her daughter who is dependent upon her to carry on the business fi-om the said premises is a bonafide need. The fact that her daughter has no other reasonably suitable accommodation to run this business is also admitted.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this score that a married daughter is not a 'dependent' within the meaning of Section 14 (l)(e) of the DRCA is repelled. A Bench of this Court in 1975 RLR 112 Lai Ram Vs.Kalawati in the context of the need for a married daughter had noted that the requirement of the daughter and her husband would be treated as the requirement of the landlady, j In 1986 (1) RCJ 717 R.K. Bhatnasar
He also has a family of two children; his wife has expired. The shop
No. N-325 is accordingly required by the landlady in order that her son Rajinder who is presently earning onlyRs.4,500/- per month from a private job can carry out this business.
The landlady is getting pension of Rs.1,000/- per month. She wants to settle her children and earn mental peace during her life time in order they are well established in their lives. Neither her daughter and nor her son have any other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation for this business.
The application seeking leave to defend has been filed in both the petitions. Common arguments have beenaddressed by the counsel for the tenant. The first and foremost submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the daughter who is admittedly married is not a resident of Delhi; she is living in Jammu. This submission has not been stated in the application seeking leave to defend. In the application seeking leave to defend, there is no dispute raised about the residence of the daughter. Vide separate detailed order of today, the application seeking permission of this Court to place on record an additional document which is a document relating to the residential status of the son-in-law of the landlady purportedly being to the effect that the son-in-law of the landlady is a resident of
Jammu and so also his wife is an argument dealt with in detail and rejected. The additional document sought to be placed on record at this stage is not permissible as no such submission has been made in the application seeking leave to defend. The submission of the learned f counsel for the petitioner that these subsequent events would in fact elicit the controversy between the parties is a submission which cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. The summary procedure contained in Section 14 (l)(e) of the DRCA stipulates the period of 15 days for filing an application seeking leave to defend which had admittedly been filed in the instant case but no issue was raised about the residential status of the daughter or the son-in-law of the landlady. This so called subsequent event was an information well known to the tenant even at the time when he filed his application seeking leave to defend. It cannot therefore be termed as a
'subsequent event'. This document has already been declined and cannot be taken on record.
Thus the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the daughter of the landlady is a resident of Jammu and not of Delhi cannot be considered.
The application seeking leave to defend in both the petitions does not in any manner raise any triable issue. In the application seeking leave to defend qua property No. N-324, it has not been disputed that the landlady has a married daughter and is carrying on confectionary business from a rented accommodation. The fact that she has three grown up children and is carrying out the business from a rented accommodation is admitted. The need of the landlady to allow her daughter who is dependent upon her to carry on the business fi-om the said premises is a bonafide need. The fact that her daughter has no other reasonably suitable accommodation to run this business is also admitted.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this score that a married daughter is not a 'dependent' within the meaning of Section 14 (l)(e) of the DRCA is repelled. A Bench of this Court in 1975 RLR 112 Lai Ram Vs.Kalawati in the context of the need for a married daughter had noted that the requirement of the daughter and her husband would be treated as the requirement of the landlady, j In 1986 (1) RCJ 717 R.K. Bhatnasar
VERSUS
Sushila Bhar2ava. the word 'dependent' was analysed to include not only a person who is financially dependent upon the landlord/landlady but has a such inder ambit. In this context it was noted as under:
"it is now wellsettled that the word "dependent" cannot be construedas wholly dependent in the sense ofearning nothing at allandthe entirely dependent on the parents for lodging and maintenance. It connotes a wider concept and covers a largerfield. It takes a person who is notfinancially dependent upon the landlord but who would in normal course look upto the landlord to provide him/her with thefacilityofa house/portionpossessedby thelandlord. "
A married daughter does fit into the family of a landlord and may (as in this case) well qualify as a dependent upon her parent for her need for accommodation. The fact that she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is also an admitted fact. No triable issue has arisen on this count.
Quathe property No N-325, it is the needof the landlady to get settled her married son Rajinder who is presently doing a job privately and earning Rs.4,500/-. This fact has not been disputed.
Orally before this Court, it has been submitted thatthe son Rajinder is
// in fact working at a reputed company i.e. the Metro Private Limited
Company and is earning a handsome amount. This has not been stated in the appHcation seelcing leave to defend. This submission thus cannot be considered. It is also not in dispute that the son Rajinder has two children; his wife has already expired. He is doing a private job.
The fact that he wishes to carry out the business of a confectionary from the shop owned by her mother and in this background his need clearly reflects to be a genuine and a bonafide need as an earning of
Rs.4,500/- per month is largely insufficient for a man who has two growing up children. The mother has sufficient funds to fund the business of her son. The fact that he has no other reasonably alternate accommodation is also admitted. No triable issue has arisen qua this property as well.
The landlord is the best judge to decide in what manner he wishes to use his premises. In this context, the following observations of the Apex Court in Prativa Devi
"it is now wellsettled that the word "dependent" cannot be construedas wholly dependent in the sense ofearning nothing at allandthe entirely dependent on the parents for lodging and maintenance. It connotes a wider concept and covers a largerfield. It takes a person who is notfinancially dependent upon the landlord but who would in normal course look upto the landlord to provide him/her with thefacilityofa house/portionpossessedby thelandlord. "
A married daughter does fit into the family of a landlord and may (as in this case) well qualify as a dependent upon her parent for her need for accommodation. The fact that she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is also an admitted fact. No triable issue has arisen on this count.
Quathe property No N-325, it is the needof the landlady to get settled her married son Rajinder who is presently doing a job privately and earning Rs.4,500/-. This fact has not been disputed.
Orally before this Court, it has been submitted thatthe son Rajinder is
// in fact working at a reputed company i.e. the Metro Private Limited
Company and is earning a handsome amount. This has not been stated in the appHcation seelcing leave to defend. This submission thus cannot be considered. It is also not in dispute that the son Rajinder has two children; his wife has already expired. He is doing a private job.
The fact that he wishes to carry out the business of a confectionary from the shop owned by her mother and in this background his need clearly reflects to be a genuine and a bonafide need as an earning of
Rs.4,500/- per month is largely insufficient for a man who has two growing up children. The mother has sufficient funds to fund the business of her son. The fact that he has no other reasonably alternate accommodation is also admitted. No triable issue has arisen qua this property as well.
The landlord is the best judge to decide in what manner he wishes to use his premises. In this context, the following observations of the Apex Court in Prativa Devi
VERSUS
T. V. Krishnan. 1996 (5) see 353 are relevant:-
The Supreme Court in Prativa Devi v. T. V. Krishnan
MANU/SC/0811/1987: 1996 (5) SCC 353 reiterated that the landlord is the bestjudge of his residential requirement and has a complete freedom in the matter and it is no concern ofthe courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manners he should live.
In this background, the impugned having dismissed the applications seeking leave to defend andhaving decreed the eviction
RC.REV. I5I/20IS&R.C. REV. No.l69/20I5 Page6of 7
I petitions do not call for any interference. Petitions are without any merit. Dismissed.
MARCH 31, 2016 A
The Supreme Court in Prativa Devi v. T. V. Krishnan
MANU/SC/0811/1987: 1996 (5) SCC 353 reiterated that the landlord is the bestjudge of his residential requirement and has a complete freedom in the matter and it is no concern ofthe courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manners he should live.
In this background, the impugned having dismissed the applications seeking leave to defend andhaving decreed the eviction
RC.REV. I5I/20IS&R.C. REV. No.l69/20I5 Page6of 7
I petitions do not call for any interference. Petitions are without any merit. Dismissed.
MARCH 31, 2016 A
RC.REV. 151/2015 & R.C. REV. No.I69/2015
INDERMEET KAUR, J Page 7of 7
INDERMEET KAUR, J Page 7of 7
JUDGMENT