KIRPAL SINGH Vs. NAVDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition impugns an order dated 26.07.2013 directing eviction of the petitioner/tenant from 2nd floor flat in property bearing No. 361, Sant Nagar, New Delhi after his leave to defend was denied.

(2.) THE grounds taken by the petitioner in his leave to defend were that (i) the suit for eviction is not accompanied by a site plan of the entire property; (ii) it does not give dimensions of the suit premises; (iii) the respondents -landlords have several residential properties and industrial plots in their names and in the names of their family members, which are in their possession, hence , they do not require premises in question for their bona fide need; (iv) the eviction petitioners do not have any title in their favour since the documents relied upon by them were un -registered and not sufficiently stamped; and finally (v) that the family members of the eviction petitioner owned property No. 421, Sant Nagar, New Delhi, which was an alternative reasonably suitable accommodation.

(3.) AFTER considering the documents on record, the Trial Court was of the view that there is no concealment of any material fact; that apart from making bald statement about the ownership of other properties by the eviction petitioners, no particulars thereof have been given; and that such arguments cannot be countenanced as triable issues. The Trial Court considered that the petitioner who was residing on the first floor in the premises comprising two living rooms, one drawing, a kitchen and a bath room, found the space insufficient for herself, her husband and their two children aged 12 and 9 years. The eviction - petitioner stated that she needed additional space for her visiting relatives as well as for her extended family. In addition, that petitioner no. 2 who although resident in Melborne with her family, needed the tenanted premises i.e. the entire ground floor of the tenanted property for use whenever she visited India along with her husband and two children aged 9 and 4 years. The Trial Court agreed with the ratio in Urmil Joshi & Ors. Vs. Raj Batra, R.C. Rev. 100/2012, decided by this Court on 02.03.2012, which held that it was not improper to deny leave to defend in a case where the petitioner and her daughter, ordinarily residents of U.K., visited India at least twice in a year, but had to stay in hotels causing them unnecessary expense and discomfort and that they wanted to settle in India, but, due to un - availability of the suit premises, were unable to do so. The Trial Court reasoned that the requirements of both the petitioners were natural and prima facie bona fide. They claimed need of the suit premises for petitioner no. 2 during her visits and stays in India, could not be said to be imbued with mala fide, especially when the said visits have been admitted by the tenant. The Court also found the currently available accommodation with petitioner no. 1 as insufficient to meet her requirements; it found the requirement for room for guests as well as a room for caretaker to be valid. The Court reiterated the settled law that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how the latter should adjust in the available premises so as to avoid the eviction of the tenant(1)(2). (1) Gita Gupta Vs. Kailash Chand Dhingra, (2013) 199 DLT 321 (2) Surender Gera Vs. Rajesh Ratan Seth, 2012 (191) DLT 765 In the circumstances, after considering the materials available on record, the Rent Controller found no triable issue to grant leave to defend and relied upon the case of Surender Gera Vs. Rajesh Ratan Seth 2012 (191) DLT 765 which holds that the Court ought not to grant leave to defend in a mechanical and routine manner. In the said case, after considering the fact that the petitioners had no suitable alternative accommodation and no triable issues were raised by the tenant necessitating evidence to be led by the tenant, the leave to defend was dismissed.