RAJBIR SHARMA & ORS Vs. SUDHIR SARAN BHATNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED judgment is dated 19.7.2011. Eviction petition filed by the landlord Sudhir Saran Bhatnagar seeking eviction of his tenant Rajbir Sharma and other from a shop (private no.1), Municipal No.1/1089, Harsaran Niwas, Railway Road, Shahdara, Delhi had been decreed; the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend had been declined. This petition has been filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. Contention of the petitioner is that he is the owner and landlord of the suit premises which has been tenanted out to the tenant. The petitioner has served as an officer with the Delhi Civil Services up to 30.9.2002 and thereafter he had been superannuated; he was appointed as Special Metropolitan Magistrate by the Delhi High Court and retired from there on 08.9.2007; he is enrolled as an advocate in the year 1963 and he now wishes to commence private legal practice as an advocate for which he had got his advocate licence renewed w.e.f. 26.9.2007 and this is evident from the letter issued by the Bar Council of Delhi on 06.10.2007. Both the aforenoted documents are the part of the eviction petition. Contention being that the petitioner does not own any other reasonable suitable accommodation from where he can carry out his legal practice; therefore the premises are required for himself for the said purpose.

(2.) LEAVE to defend was filed. No triable issue has been raised as is evident from the averments made in the said application. Contention is that the petition has been filed only with respect to one part of the premises; petition is not maintainable; some other person is the owner of the said premises but name is not known; in para 8 properties have been detailed which are seven in number; contention of the tenant is that the aforenoted properties are alternate accommodation which are available with the landlord and these have not been fully disclosed by him; this amounts to a concealment and as such no decree could have been passed in favour of such a dishonest landlord. Reply of the landlord filed to the application for leave to defend has also been perused. These details are contained in para 8. There has been a vehement denial of all these aforenoted submissions. It is denied that property No.234, Farsh Bazar, Mohalla Doongar, Shahdara has a total 15 rooms; contention is that the first floor is for the residence where the petitioner and his family members are living and on the ground floor there is one drawing room and a servant quarter and a pooja room; premises is located in a gali which cannot be put to commercial use as it is residential in nature; qua the property no.234 -236 at Farsh Bazar, Delhi it is stated that the said property belongs to Sunil Kumar Bhatnagar the younger brother of the petitioner with which the petitioner has no concern; qua property No.8/108, 109,110,111,116 and 117, Circular Road, Shahdara, Delhi, it is submitted that this property has been sold about 15 -20 years ago and is not in any manner connected with the petitioner; Flat No.1/1100 on the first floor Harsaran Niwas, Railway Road, Shahdara, Delhi is in occupation of a tenant who is widow of Shanker Lal and now living there and this fact is fully known to the petitioner. Property No.1/1087 was disposed of by Babita Jain in October, 2006 and the same is no longer connected with the landlord. Property bearing No.1/1084 was under the old tenancy of Gurnam Singh and was sold to him in December 2004. Contention of the landlord is that the tenant is trying to build up one ground or the other a defence when he is fully aware of the fact that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation from where he can carry out his legal profession for which he had got his licence renewed w.e.f. 26.9.2007 to which factum there is no dispute. In this background it can in no manner be said that any triable issue has arisen. The question of ownership and the status of the landlord as owner also stands fully established. The submission made by the tenant that the landlord is not the owner of the suit premises is only a bald statement; in fact the tenant has qualified this statement by stating that some other person is the owner of the suit property but the name of the that other person has not been disclosed. In these circumstances the question of the status of the respondent as owner/landlord cannot be questioned. In : (1987) 4 SCC 193 Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. Ved Prabha & Ors.