Revision against eviction order under Delhi Rent Control Act. Court dismissed tenant's plea that eviction was arbitrary or lacked bona fide requirement, noting new grounds were raised too late and supported only by bald assertions.
Revision petition dismissed; eviction order upheld; all pending applications disposed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~A-21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Through Mr.Kamal Sharma, Adv.
Versus
RAM CHAMELI ANAND AND ANR. ....Respondent Through Mr.Abdesh Choudhary and Mr.S.Majumdar, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
R.C.REV.282/2016
Page 1
Property under the sales certificate dated 13.6.1969. After the death of Shri Nanak Chand, respondent No.1 got the property mutated in her name and has deposited necessary mutation charges/property tax. Late Shri Tannu Ram was inducted as a tenant in 1969 at a rent of Rs.5/- per month. He expired in 2001. The petitioner is the son of Shri Tannu Ram and has paid rent thereafter. It is urged that the property is required bona fide for the use of Shri Punit Sahni the grandson of the respondent No.1 and son of respondent No.2. Shri Punit Sahni is a qualified Engineer who is said to have considerable experience in marketing, production, service and business strategies. He is planning to get into the business of Hybrid seeds and other agricultural inputs and requires the premises bona fide for starting his business. He has already said to have entered into an MOU with Shri Rajender Suri/Chambal Hybrid Seeds Private Limited.
R.C.REV.282/2016
Page 2
On the bona fide requirement, the impugned order notes about the requirement of Shri Punit Sahni son of respondent No.2 and grandson of respondent No.1. It notes that Shri Punit Sahni is a qualified Engineer who is planning to go into the business of hybrid seeds etc. It notes the MOU entered into by the said Shri Punit Sahni. As nothing substantial was pleaded to the contrary the impugned order concludes that the facts on record show that there exists a bona fide requirement for Shri Punit Sahni who is dependent upon respondents for accommodation.
On availability of alternative suitable accommodation the impugned order notes the submission of the petitioners that the respondents have lots of other properties. However, no details have been mentioned. The impugned order hence concludes that the petitioner has made bald allegations without any substance. The application for leave to defend of the applicant was dismissed and eviction order was passed in favour of the respondents.
The scope of the present revision petition is extremely limited. This court is obliged to test the impugned order to see whether it is in accordance with law and for that limited purpose reappraise the evidence on refund and
R.C.REV.282/2016
Page 3
to further see that the conclusion arrived at by the ARC are not wholly unreasonable.”
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
xxxxx
(e) that the premises let for residential purpose are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.”
R.C.REV.282/2016
Page 4
“7. The Controller has not discussed as to how the pleas raised by the respondent/tenant in the application for leave to defend are such which if established by adducing evidence would disentitle the petitioner/landlord of an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. Ordinarily, when a tenant approaches an advocate for drafting a leave to defend application, the advocate, using his legal acumen would dispute each and every plea of the landlord in the eviction petition. However, merely because the tenant so disputes and controverts the pleas of the landlord does not imply that the provision of summary procedure introduced in the Act with respect to ground of eviction on the ground of requirement is to be set at naught. The Controller is required to sift/comb through the application for leave to defend and the affidavit filed therewith and to see whether the tenant has given any facts/particulars which require to be established by evidence and which if established would disentitle the landlord from an order of eviction. The test is not of the tenant having controverted/denied the claim of the landlord and thus disputed questions of fact arising; the test is to examine the pleas of facts and then to determine the impact thereof.”
R.C.REV.282/2016
Page 5
eviction petition that the premises are required bona fide for the use of Shri Punit Sahni. It is also on record that there is no other suitable alternative accommodation available with the respondents. The petitioner has not been able to plead or demonstrate anything to the contrary.
“It is settled position of law that bonafide requirement means that requirement must be honest and not tainted with any oblique motive and is not a mere desire or wish. In Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde and Anr.: [1999] 2 SCR 912, this Court while considering the bonafide need of the landlord was of the view that when a landlord says that he needs the building for his own occupation, he has to prove it but there is no warrant for 'presuming that his need is not bonafide'. It was also held that while deciding this question. Court would look into the broad aspects and if the Courts feels any doubt about bonafide requirement, it is for the landlord to clear such doubt.”
R.C.REV.282/2016
Page 6
Now, a bald plea has been raised in the present revision petition claiming that Shri Punit Sahni is employed in Gwalior working in Kurlon.
“16. From a careful perusal of Sub-section (4) of Section 25B of the Rent Act, it would be clearly evident that the tenant shall not be permitted to contest the prayer for eviction unless he files an affidavit before the Controller stating the ground on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller. This Section also clearly indicates that in default of his appearance in compliance with the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the eviction proceeding shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the landlord shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground mentioned in the eviction petition. At this stage, we may also note that in Sub-section (4) of Section 25B of the Rent Act read with Third Schedule, it has been made clear by the Legislature that if the summons of the proceeding is received by the tenant, he has to appear and ask for leave to contest the eviction proceeding within 15 days from the date of service of notice upon the tenant and if he fails to do so, automatically, an order of eviction in favour of the landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement shall be made.”
R.C.REV.282/2016
Page 7
to rebut this contention and it would be highly improper to permit the petitioner to plead the same.
(JAYANT NATH) JUDGE
OCTOBER 19, 2016 n
corrected and signed on as 3.7.2017
R.C.REV.282/2016
Page 8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Additional Rent Controller committed any error in law or acted arbitrarily in dismissing the tenant's leave to defend and granting eviction.
Whether the tenant's new plea that the proposed occupant works in Gwalior was raised within the statutory time limit for leave to defend.
Whether there existed a bona fide requirement for eviction based on the landlord's suitability of accommodation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarwan Dass Bange vs. Ram PrakashReferred¶37
MANU/DE/0204/2010
Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Co.Referred¶43
[2000] 1 SCR 77 · Who else cites this
Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.V. KrishnanReferred¶43
(1996) 5 SCC 353 · Who else cites this
G.C. Kapoor Vs. Nand Kumar BhasinReferred¶44
AIR 2002 SC 200 · Who else cites this
Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde and Anr.Referred¶44
[1999] 2 SCR 912 · Who else cites this
Prithipal Singh v. Satpal SinghReferred¶49
(2010) 2 SCC 15 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Nand Kishore Sonkar
Ram Chameli Anand
Jayant Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
