Inder Kumar Lamba v. Veena Sethi & Ors

1. These are three revision petitions filed by the common petitionerlandlord againstthe three tenants in respect ofthree different shops bearing Nos. 1,[2] and 3 part ofthe premises No.3-10,Model Town, Delhi.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also gone through the record.

3. The petitioner-landlord in the instant case had sought an eviction of three different tenants in respect ofthree shops which were under the tenancies ofthree tenants by stating that he needs the shops for the purpose ofsettling his three adults sons,who were married and having children. It has been stated by the eldest son is 49 years of age having two-three children and similar is the case with the other two sons. It has been alleged that the three sons ofthe petitioner are dependent on him both financially as well as for the purpose of RC.Rev.No.264/2014,265/2014&266/2014 Page2of[7] accommodation. Presently, it has been stated that the petitioner who is suffering from 50% disability is in the business of manufacturing auto parts in which three sons are helping him.The petitioner has alleged that he has no other alternative suitable accommodation available to him where he could settle his three sons.

4. The respondents-tenants individually filed their three separate leave to defend applications and in all the three applications, the tenants had taken the plea that the petitioner has been guilty of concealment of vital information from the Court. He had an alternative suitable accommodation available to him in the shape of a plot in Bawana which is an industrial area which has not been disclosed wherefrom the sons ofthe petitioner could run business.

5. The petitioner in his reply to the leave to defend application has stated that so far as the finance is concerned,the wives ofthe sons ofthe petitioner or the daughter-in-law ofthe petitioner are doing tuition business. So far as the industrial plot in Bawana is concerned, that cannot be considered to be an alternative suitable RC.Rev. No.264/2014,265/2014&266/2014 Page3of[7] accommodation available to him as it is yet to be built and in any case this plotofland is aleasehold plotofland whereffom business cannot be run by the sons ofthe petitioner.

6. The learned Additional Rent Controller(ARC) after hearing the arguments has granted leave to defend to all the respondentstenants essentially on the ground thatthe petitioner has been found to be guilty ofconcealmentofvitalinformation from the courtwith regard to the industrial plotin Bawana.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as gone through the impugned order.

8. I find myself in agreement with the learned ARC with regard to appreciation offacts that a person who seeks eviction ofa tenant must come to the Court with clean hands and give the complete information.The accommodation which is available with him must be disclosed and thereafter it may also be disclosed by him as to whether that accommodation which is available with him is alternatively suitable or not. RC.Rev.No.264/2014,265/2014&266/2014 Page4of[7]

9. In the instant case,the petitioner does not disclose the availability ofan alternative plot and it is only in reply to the leave to defend application that he admits that he has a plot available to him but says that it is not suitable.

10. The question of suitability is to be objectively assessed by the Court though the decision has to be taken by the party himselfin the first instance but when the information itselfis withheld by the petitioner of its availability, it casts a doubt regarding his bona fides and the tenant is entitled to leave to defend. This precisely whathas been done by the learned ARC.

11. Moreover,the petitioner has stated that he is suffering from 50% disability while his three sons are adults, married and are stated to be financially dependent on the father. This fact ofthe eldest son being 49 years of age having three children and still being financially dependentonthe father could have been believed bythe Court in case it would have been disclosed to the Court as to how much money he was getting by assisting his father. In rejoinder to the leave to defend application this aspect was contested. The RC.Rev.No.264/2014,265/2014&266/2014 Page5of[7] petitioner in rejoinder states that the wives of the sons of the petitioner are doing tuition business to supplement the income. This also becomes a kind of afterthought which also adds to the doubt with regard to the bonafides. Therefore,essentially in a case of this nature where rival averments are made by the parties on Affidavit, the only method of determining the truthfulness of the landlord would be to permit the tenant to produce evidence and similarly the landlord would also be able to do so. It is because of these reasons that the leave to defend has been granted to the respondents-tenants.

12. I have gone through the impugned order. I do not find that there is any illegality or impropriety orjurisdictional error in arriving atthe finding by the learned ARC prima facie to grant leave to defend. For these reasons, I feel that the present petitions are totally misconceived challenging the order ofgrant ofleave.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has given a list along with copies of28judgments without specifying as to on what points he wants to refer the judgments and the principle oflaw,therefore, I RC.Rev.No.264/2014,265/2014&.266/2014 Page6of[7] /> do not find it necessary to deal with the same. Therefore, these petitions are totally frivolous and are accordingly dismissed.

14. Pending applications also stand disposed of. V.K.SHALI,J. NOVEMBER 24,2015 vk RC.Rev. No.264/2014,265/2014& 266/2014 Page 7of[7]