INDO AFGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Vs. KALAWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 01.05.2013 whereby he has been directed to be evicted from the tenanted premises i.e. 622, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi. He is aggrieved by the denial of leave to defend.

(2.) THE respondent landlady pleaded that she needed the tenanted premises to settle her second son namely Shri Vipin Kumar into his own business, he was currently engaged in trading of Kasuri Methi in one small Kolki under the staircase and another one of smaller area of 2x3 feet on the first floor. Both of which were extremely small and insufficient for carrying out the said business and were also a constraint in the expansion of the business. Besides, she submits, her husband and their son have rented shop in the same locality at a monthly rent of Rs.7,000/ -, ironically while they were suffering the non -availability of their own shop which the tenant occupied at a monthly rent of Rs.200/ -; that the second son had a diploma in computers and he could not put his educational qualification to professional or commercial use due to the paucity of space. It was contended that should the tenanted premises be vacated, the landlady's husband and son would be able to shift into it then save the unnecessary rent of Rs.7,000/ - and expand their business.

(3.) THE impugned order took into consideration each of the properties mentioned in the leave to defend i.e. two shops on first floor of property No. 622, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi admeasuring 2.1 x 7.7 ft. and 3 x 6 feet which were stated to be in occupation of the petitioner and have been put to use by her husband and son under the name and style of M/s. Sharda Prasad Neeraj Kumar; an office each on the second floor and third floors of the same building which were stated to have been given out on rent; Shop No. 17 D, Gopi Nath Market, Near Ramdev Market, Khari Baoli, Delhi was self occupied by the petitioner and finally, a shop being used in the name of M/s. Rajdhani Marbles, Bhajanpura, New Delhi by the son of the petitioner. The landlady denied ownership of the properties on the second and third floors of the building as well as of shop No. 17D, Gopi Nath Market. The shop at Bhajanpura was occupied by the landlady's first son for his independent business and exclusive use. It was not available to the second son for whose benefit the tenanted premises were sought. The two shops on the first floor are the same as mentioned in the eviction petition - as small kolkies, which as observed hereinabove were insufficient, inconvenient and improper for being put to any meaningful commercial use as contemplated by the petitioner. The issue of petitioner's paying rent @ Rs.7,000/ - per month for another shop or the respondent not using the shop in question or having installed a separate electricity connection in the premises, were rightly considered irrelevant apropos the determination of bonafide need of the tenanted premises other than making bald allegation of owning the properties mentioned in the leave to defend. The tenant did not produce any document or material to prima facie show that the properties were owned by the landlady so as to make it a triable issue for grant of leave to defend. This Court is of the view that insofar as the landlady had denied ownership of three out of the six premises mentioned in the leave to defend, and of the remaining three shops one was being used by her, while the remaining two kolkies were insufficient to meet the need, nothing remained in the leave to defend. The tenant's claim for the need of the premises could not be a ground for granting leave to defend. Therefore, there was no triable issue for which leave to defend could be granted. The Trial Court rightly observed that: