Dismissed

Jasbir Singh v. Kishan Lal

Delhi HC1 May 2012RC.REV./194/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order dismissing a tenant's application for leave to defend an eviction petition. The court held that leave to defend was properly refused as the tenant failed to disclose a prima-facie case and attempted to introduce evidence created after the eviction order, which was impermissible under the summary procedure and CPC.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; impugned order dismissing leave to defend application allowed.

Jasbir Singh Vs Kishan Lal — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

% Date of Judgment:01.05.2012

¶3

- RC.REV. 194/2012 & CM Nos.7905-07/2012

¶4

JASBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr. A. Maitri, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

KISHAN LAL ..... Respondent Through None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

¶10

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

¶11

1 Impugned judgment is dated 02.02.2012. The application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend had been dismissed. The eviction petition filed by the landlord Kishan Lal seeking eviction of his tenant Jasbir Singh from the disputed premises i.e. a shop forming a part of property No. A-7/52, Main Road, Lal Quarter, Krishan Nagar, Delhi under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed.

¶12

2 Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by

¶13

the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement; the petitioner claims himself to be owner of the suit premises. His contention is that he RCR No.194/2012 Page 1 of 6

¶14

has two sons namely Rajat Arora and Deepak; younger son Rajat Arora is running his readymade garment shop if the rear portion of the suit property; Deepak who has non-speaking terms with his younger brother is aged 40 years; he is unemployed; present premises are required by the petitioner for his elder son Deepak to run his business as Deepak is dependent solely upon his father for his need for accommodation; his son Deepak requires the disputed premises where he wishes to start his own business which shop falls at the front side.

¶15

3 The application seeking leave to defend has been perused. By and

¶16

large the averments are to the effect that Rajat Arora has a shopt at A- 10, East Krishan Nagar, Delhi; Deepak is employed for the last one year; in the earlier part of the petition, it has been denied that Deepak is the son of the petitioner; contention being that the petitioner has only one son.

¶17

4 Corresponding paras of the reply to the application seeking leave to defend have been perused. It is denied that the petitioner has only one son; it has been reiterated that Deepak and Rajat are both the sons of the petitioner and to support this submission, the election I card and the driving license of Deepak have showing name of Deepak also been RCR No.194/2012 Page 2 of 6

¶18

placed on record.

¶19

5 These are by and large the contentions raised by the tenant.

¶20

6 In (1982) 3 SCC 270 Precision Steel & Engineering Works &

¶21

another Vs. Prem Devi Niranjan Deva Tayal the Apex Court has held that the prayer for leave to contest should be granted to the tenant only where a prima-facie case has been disclosed by him. In the absence of the tenant having disclosed a prima-facie case i.e. such facts as to what disentitles the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction, the Court should not mechanically and in routine manner grant leave to defend.

¶22

7 The counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court to a document dated 03.02.2012; contention is that by virtue of this document which is a rent deed, the present landlord Krishan Lal has given on rent a shop in the same property which has since been vacated; contention is that this document if taken on record would throw light on the controversy in question and would automatically entitle the tenant to

¶23

leave to defend. This document (admittedly only a photocopy of the document has been placed on record) is dated 03.02.2012; the impugned order is dated 02.02.2012; admittedly this document was not even created at the time when the eviction order was passed; it could RCR No.194/2012 Page 3 of 6

¶24

obviously not form a part of the application seeking leave to defend. Triable issues have to emanate from the pleadings of the parties which includes the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend; no such triable issue has arisen. That apart the reply filed to this pending application (filed before this Court) has disputed the veracity of this document; contention on the tenant on this count is that this document can be proved in accordance with law and matter should be remanded back. If such like prayer are granted, the whole purport and import of the summary procedure contained in Section 25-B of the DRCA would be defeated; this summary procedure has been engrafted for a special class of landlords including a landlord who seeks eviction under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA. Upon service, the application seeking leave to defend has to be filed within a stipulated period of 15 days; this is a mandatory provision. If no triable issue emanates from the pleadings of the parties which includes the application seeking leave to defend (as noted supra), leave to defend should not be granted in a routine or mechanical manner. At the cost of repetition, if the aforenoted averments contained in the application are permitted and the disputed document is to be taken on record which was admittedly after the filing RCR No.194/2012 Page 4 of 6

¶25

of the eviction petition, the whole purpose of providing a stipulated time period of 15 days for filing an application seeking leave to defend would be given a go-bye; there would be an automatic extension for filing an application for leave to defend. Even otherwise, it is only a photocopy of this document which has been filed on record; it is also not a registered document. An application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) necessarily postulates certain pre-conditions before which the prayer made in such an application can be entertained; the application must aver that inspite of due diligence, the additional evidence which is now sought to be produced could not be adduced in the court below or inspite of due diligence the applicant could not get his hands on the said document. The document which is now sought to be filed in additional evidence is a document which has been created after the judgment has been delivered by the trial Court; the impugned order is dated 02.02.2012 and

¶26

the document is dated 03.02.2012. That apart the necessary ingredient of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code have not been pleaded in the application. This provision would thus be wholly inapplicable to the averments made

¶27

in the present application. This application has been filed malafide; it RCR No.194/2012 Page 5 of 6

¶28

cannot be entertained at this stage.

¶29

8 In this background, the averments made in the eviction petition clearly establish the need of the landlord for the disputed shop which is for the purpose of the business of his elder son Deepak who is unemployed and who is also dependent upon his father for his accommodation.

¶30

9 No other argument has been urged or argued.

¶31

10 Thus, the impugned order decreeing the petition of the landlord

¶32

and dismissing the application of the tenant seeking leave to defend does

¶33

not suffer from any infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.

¶34

INDERMEET KAUR, J

¶35

MAY 01, 2012 A

¶36

Page 6 of 6

¶37

RCR No.194/2012

Jasbir Singh v. Kishan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Singh v. Kishan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atma Ram Properties P. Ltd. Vs M/S Escorts Ltd.

Ravi Prakash Garg Vs Jaswant Singh Jaiswal

M/S Rattan Lal Ram Kumar & Anr. Vs Maman Chand

Agrbandhu Footwears P.Ltd. Vs Dayanand Jain

Shashi Kant Jain Vs Tilak Raj Salooja & Anr.

Shivraj Krishan Gupta Vs Chander Krishan Gupta & Ors.