Page no. 1 of 18 IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ (WEST) THC, DELHI UID No. 02401C0654492014 E No.2/2014 U/s 14(1)(e) of [ACT] Date of institution: 21.12.2013 Date of Order: 30.08.2014 Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Late Sh. Raghubir Dayal Sharma R/o WZ-502, Basai Darapur New Delhi-110015 Petitioner Versus Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Late Sh. [ENTITY] R/o F-166, Middle Portion, Sudershan Park, Basai Darapur New Delhi-110015 Respondent Order deciding Leave to Defend in Eviction petition U/[SECTION]/[SECTION] of [ACT] 1)Vide this order the Court shall dispose of the application U/[SECTION] & [SECTION] of [ACT] of the respondents seeking leave to defend the eviction petition, filed on 05.02.2014. 2)The eviction petition U/[SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as [ACT]) was filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 21.12.2013. FACTS
3)The averments made in the petition are that:-
3.1 One room, situated at the ground floor of the property No. F-166 (middle portion), Sudarshan Park, Basai Darapur, New Delhi. (herein after called tenanted premises/premises in question), as shown in red colour in the site plan, was let out by the late father of the petitioner Sh. [ENTITY] [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] Sharma to the father of the respondent Late Sh. [ENTITY] in the year 1969-1970 and at the rate of rent of Rs.200/- per month exclusive of other charges.
3.2 Initially the premises in question was let out to the respondent' father.
However, after his death, the respondent inherited the tenancy.
3.3 The father of the petitioner died on 09/05/1970 leaving behind 4 sons and 2 daughters as his legal heirs, who mutually partitionedamong them all proprties and assets left behind by their father.
3.4 The property no. WZ-502 (except ground floor), Baasidarapur, New Delhi and the property no. F-166 (middle portion), Sudarshan Park, Basai Darapur, New Delhi came in the share of the petitioner and he became the owner and landlord of the same.
3.5 Property no. WZ-502, Basai Darapur, New Delhi consists ground floor, first floor and second floor. The entire ground floor of the said property is in the share of the petitioner Sh. [ENTITY].
3.6 The petitioner is having two rooms, two verandas in front of rooms, kitchen and two toilets on the first floor and two rooms and a veranda in front of the room, toilet on the second floor of the property no. WZ-502, Basai Darapur, New Delhi in his possession and occupation.
3.7 Property no. F-166 (middle portion), Sudarshan Park, Basai Darapur, New Delhi consists of three shops on the front side and the tenanted room in the back side. The petitioner does not have any other property in his possession or occupation.
3.8 The petitioner has two married daughters and two sons namley Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY]. The elder daughter of the petitioner is having a son and a daughter. The younder daughter of the petitioner is also having two daughters. The elder son of the petitioner is married and having a daughter of 2 years. The younger son of the petitioner is unmarried. The petitioner is having a number of marriage proposals for his younger son but is not accepting them due to paucity of accommodation.
[PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT]
3.9 The elder son of the petitioner is a practicing advocate, who is having a family consisting of his wife and a daughter. He does not have any office in the locality to entertain his clients. The petitioner wants to get his younger son married and after that, the petitioner wants to settle his younger son with him in the second floor of property no. WZ-502, Basai Darapur, New Delhi. The petitioner wants to shift his elder son to the property no. F-166 (middle portion), Sudarshan Park, Basai Darapur, New Delhi.
3.10 The petitioner is having three small shops on the front side of the property no. F-166 (middle portion), Sudarshan Park, Basai Darapur, New Delhi and all the said shops are in occupation of tenants. The petitioner is to get one shop vacated from the tenant for the office purpose of this elder son.
3.11 That the daughters of the petitioner and their children used to visit the petitioner frequently and stay with him. The two sisters of the petitioner and their children also used to visit the petitioner and stay with him. The petitioner is having only 4 rooms in property no. WZ-502, Basai Darapur, New Delhi but is in great bonafide need of atleast 10 rooms for the purposes of bedrooms, drawing rooms, store rooms, worship room, living room, kitchen and for residence of his family.
3.12 The petitioner does not have any suitable residential or commercial built up property. The premises in question was let out purely for residential purposes and the petitioner is in great bonafide need of the same.
4)The respondent has filed application for leave to defend along with affidavit wherein he stated the following facts:
4.1 That the premises in question consists of one room with latrine and open courtyard covered with tirpal.1 4.2 As per the the version of the respondent, portion of the premises in question was acquired by his father from the petitioner's mother in 1967.2
[SECTION]Respondent has raised certain defenses in the application for leave to defend and 1 Para 4 of the affidavit under consideration.
2 Para 5 of the affidavit under consideration.
[PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] the same are as under:
5.1 That the petitioner is not the owner of the premises in question and he has not filed any document of ownership.
5.2 That there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent is occupying the premises in question in his own independent right and capacity.
5.3 That the premises in question was sold out by the petitioner's mother Smt. [ENTITY] to the respondent's father Sh. [ENTITY] for a consideration of Rs. 450/- in the year 1967 and thereafter the respondent's father constructed the said room and latrine on a portion and remaining portion was kept open which is since covered by a tirpal.
5.4 The petitioner's mother executed a receipt cum possession letter in favour of the respondent's father at that time, which unfortunately was misplaced/ lost due to heavy downpour and during the course of repairing/ renovation. Since the premises is situated in Lal Dora, therefore, no other sale/title documents were executed.
5.5 That the respondent became the owner of the premises after the death of his father and there has never been any occasion for paying rent.
5.6 That the petitioner and his son want to usurp the premises without any legal right and authority taking advantage that the respondent is a very poor illiterate person and belongs to schedule caste community.
5.7 The petitioner has not filed any document which could substantiate and support his false claim of partition of properties among his brother and sisters.
5.8 That the petitioner is threatening the respondent and his family member to vacate and leave the premises and the respondent is a very poor person having no other accommodation in his possession.
6) The petitioner has filed a reply to the application for Leave to Defend along with counter affidavit and in the counter affidavit the petitioner has denied the defences E. No. [PRECEDENT] Page no. 5 of 18 taken by the respondents. The petitioner further submitted as under:
6.1 That the respondent has indirectly admitted that the mother of the petitioner as owner of the premises.
6.2 That the respondent had falsely averred in his application that the premises was sold by the petitioner's mother to respondent's father. The property no. F-166 (middle portion), Sudarshan Park, Basai Darapur, New Delhi is the ancestral property of the petitioner which he has got from his father and the petitioner's mother was never its owner.
6.3 That it is reflected in the inspection book of MCD/ record for the year 1974 till date that the father of the respondent is a tenant in the premises in question.
7) Rejoinder to the reply to the application was filed by the respondent wherein respondents denied all the contents of the reply and reiterated the defenses taken in application for leave to defend. However, it was also submitted in addition to the submissions taken in the leave to defend application that:
7.1 The alleged record of MCD does not prove the ownership of father of the petitioner qua the premises in question.
7.2 The petitioner is already in possession of 10 room in property no. WZ-505, Basai Darapur, New Delhi comprising of ground floor, first floor and second floor.
7.3 In property no. F-166, Sudershan Park, New Delhi, there are three shops infront and one room on rear side and remaining property measuring 170 sq. yards is lying vacant.
7.4 None of the petitioner's sons or daughters are dependent upon him.
7.5 The petitioner and his family require a total of only three rooms, however, accommodation of 11 rooms is already available with the petitioner.
7.6 That the petitioner has himself alleged that he recently got one shop vacated in the ground floor of premises no. F-166, Sudershan Park, New E. No. [PRECEDENT] Page no. 6 of 18 Delhi.
7.7 That the petitioner can also raise much more construction in property no. WZ-502, Basai Darapur and F-166, Sudershan Park, New Delhi.
8) Arguments were heard on the application under consideration on behalf of both the parties. Material on record has been perused. Submissions considered.
REQUIRMENTS
9) In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] the petitioner must establish that:
i.He is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.
ii.That he requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
iii.That he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation
10) The defences which are taken by respondents are discussed below and the same are as under:-
DEFENCES
11) Petitioner is not the owner of the premises; it was sold by the petitioner to the respondent:
11.1 In [ACT], the landlord can be said to be owner, if he is entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from for and on behalf of someone else, to evict the tenant and then to retain, control, hold and use the premises for himself.
11.2 In [PRECEDENT] it was observed by the Apex Court that an "owner-landlord" can seek eviction on the ground of his personal requirement is one who has a right against the whole world to occupy the building in his own right and exclude anyone holding a title lesser than his own.
[PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT]
11.3 It was observed in [PRECEDENT] that the term "owner" has to be understood in the context of the background of the law and what is contemplated in the scheme of the Act. The Act has been enacted for protection of the tenants. But, at the same time, it has provided that the landlord under certain circumstances will be entitled to eviction and bona fide requirement is one of such grounds. Ordinarily, the concept of the ownership may be absolute ownership in the land as well as of the structure standing thereon. But in the modern context, where all lands belong to the State, the persons who hold properties will only be lessees or the persons holding the land on some term from the Government or the authorities constituted by the State. The legislature, when it used the term "owner" in s.
14(1)(e), did not think of ownership as absolute ownership. The meaning of the term "owner" is vis-a-vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant. In cases where the plot of land is taken on lease, the structure is built by the landlord and he is the owner of the structure.
11.4 In the present case the defence raised by the respondent is that the petitioner is not the owner of the premises in question and he has not filed any document of ownership. That the premises in question was sold out by the petitioner's mother Smt. [ENTITY] to the respondent's father Sh. [ENTITY] for a consideration of Rs. 450/- in the year 1967 and thereafter the respondent's father constructed the said room and latrine on a portion and remaining portion was kept open which is since covered by a tirpal.3 11.5 It has been alleged by the respondent that the petitioner's mother executed a receipt cum possession letter in favour of the respondent's father at that time, which unfortunately was misplaced/ lost due to heavy downpour and during the course of repairing/ renovation. Since the premises is situated in Lal Dora, therefore, no other sale/title documents were executed.4 11.6 It is an alleged case of the respondent himself that the possession of the premises in question was handed over to his father by the petitioner's mother. In fact, it is the very case of the respondent that his father purchased the 3 Para 5 of the affidavit under consideration.
4 Para 5 of the affidavit under consideration.
E. No. [PRECEDENT]
premises in question from the petitioner's mother who executed some documents in favour of the respondent's father but the same were lost/ misplaced.
11.7 Firstly, there is nothing on record to show any such sale transaction or that the respondent took any steps in any court of law to get the petitioner to execute any other documents. There is nothing even to show that the respondent or his father took any steps for reporting the alleged loss of such documents. Secondly, the petitioner has brought on record various MCD inspection records to show that earlier the petitioner's father and later, the petitioner was the owner of the premises. Moreover, even if the respondent's version is assumed to be true then as no documents have been brought on record to show the respondent's ownership. Hence, the respondent cannot challenge the ownership of the petitioner.
11.8 Thus, this defence raised by the respondent is a vague and sham defence and it does not raise any triable issue.
12)No relationship of landlord - tenant between the parties; respondent occupying premises in his own independent right and capacity:
12.1 It has been stated by the respondent that as the petitioner's mother had sold the premises in question to his father, there is no land lord tenant relationship between the parties. That the respondent became the owner of the premises after the death of his father and there has never been any occasion for paying rent. Although, a substantial portion of the said defence has been dealt with above it is important to mention here that it is not necessary that a written agreement has to be in existence for creation of tenancy under the [ACT]. Although, the petitioner has not placed on record any rent receipt, it is the alleged case of the respondent himself that the possession of the premises was handed over by the petitioner's mother to the respondent's father.
12.2 In this regard, reliance is placed on the case of [PRECEDENT] wherein it was held that:
[PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT]
"3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends vehemently that once relationship of landlord and tenant is challenged, tenant is entitled to leave to contest the eviction petition. There is no dispute as to this proposition of law as it is the owner of the premises who has right to seek eviction of the tenant and none less on the ground of bonfire requirement of the premises. In this case petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the premises and not as a tenant. The authority of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in [PRECEDENT] is not at all applicable in the given facts and circumstances of the case as any person who denies to be a tenant and claim to be the owner of the premises cannot claim to be granted leave to defend eviction petition as eviction proceedings initiated under the [ACT] cannot be converted into a title suit. The title of the party is always decided though civil proceedings. As such claim of the petitioner that he is the owner of the premises and not the tenant could have been vindicated by way of filing civil suit and not in the eviction proceedings.
The first and foremost requirement to become entitled to leave to defend is that there should exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. By denying the ownership or land lordship of the petitioner and claiming himself as owner, the petitioner cannot be granted leave to defend the eviction petition."
12.3 Moreover, it has been observed in judgment titled as [PRECEDENT] by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under:
"11) Thus, the affidavit filed by the tenant was shown to be false by the landlady on the basis of documents placed by it. No Rent Con-
troller is supposed to grant leave to the tenant on the basis of a false affidavit and false averments and assertions. Such affidavit should be outrightly rejected by the Rent Controller. Only those averments in [PRECEDENT] the affidavit are to be considered by the Rent Controller which have same substance in it and are supported by some material. Mere as- sertions made by a tenant in respect of landlord's ownership of other buildings and in respect of alternate accommodation are not to be considered sufficient for grant of leave to defend."
12.4 In his application, the respondent has merely stated that the respondent is the owner of the property even though admitting that no documents were in his possession to prove the same. It was for the respondent to show that he was not a tenant in the property which he has miserably failed to do.
12.5 It has also been alleged by the respondent that the petitioner has not filed any document which could substantiate and support his false claim of partition of properties among his brother and sisters. Even if it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner does not have exclusive ownership of the premises it amounts to indirectly admitting that the petitioner is the owner of the premises but not exclusive owner of the premises. Thus, the petitioner is having a right against the whole world to occupy the tenanted premises in his own right and exclude anyone holding a title lesser than his own. Consequently, he is entitled to file the present petition. Further, it is not essential that the eviction petition is to be filed by all the co-owners of the property. As a co-owner petitioner can file eviction petition without impleading other co-owners. Reliance is placed on judgments [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT].
12.6 Thus, this defence raised by the respondent is a vague and sham defence and it does not raise any triable issue.
13) Petitioner wants to usurp the premises and is threatening the respondent:
13.1 The respondent has alleged that the petitioner and his son want to usurp [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] the premises without any legal right and authority taking advantage that the respondent is a very poor illiterate person and belongs to schedule caste community.
13.2 The respondent has also alleged that the petitioner is threatening the re- spondent and his family member to vacate and leave the premises and the re- spondent is a very poor person having no other accommodation in his posses- sion.
13.3 It has been observed in judgment titled as [PRECEDENT]. (Supra) by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under:
"11) Thus, the affidavit filed by the tenant was shown to be false by the landlady on the basis of documents placed by it. No Rent Con-
troller is supposed to grant leave to the tenant on the basis of a false affidavit and false averments and assertions. Such affidavit should be outrightly rejected by the Rent Controller. Only those averments in the affidavit are to be considered by the Rent Controller which have same substance in it and are supported by some material. Mere as- sertions made by a tenant in respect of landlord's ownership of other buildings and in respect of alternate accommodation are not to be considered sufficient for grant of leave to defend."
13.4 There is nothing on record to show that the respondent took any action against the petitioner against such alleged threatening. Even otherwise, if the allegations of the respondent are assumed to be true then also it does not raise any triable issue with respect to the ingredients of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Thus, such bald averments cannot be relied upon.
13.5 Accordingly, this defence raised by the respondent is a sham defence and it does not raise any triable issue.
14)Additional pleas taken in the rejoinder:
14.1 At the very outset it is pertinent to mention here that the respondent has not taken any other defence in his application for leave to defend except for E. No. [PRECEDENT] Page no. 12 of 18 those which have been dealt with above. However, he has leveled various other allegations in the rejoinder filed by him. A rejoinder is normally filed to explain certain averments made in the W.S. A rejoinder can never be meant for introducing altogether new facts. If a rejoinder is used for this purpose then the opposite party has to be given another opportunity to counter the new submissions and there would be no end to such additions. A rejoinder can furnish clarifications with respect to ambiguous facts already mentioned on record but cannot be used to fill the gaps and lacunae in the pleadings or for taking entirely new grounds altogether.
14.2 It has been held in the case of [PRECEDENT] decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 22 February, 2012 that:
"9. The grievance of the petitioner - tenant that the learned Additional Rent Controller was not justified in ignoring his plea taken in the rejoinder that some months before the filing of the eviction petition the respondent - landlord had sold four rooms after getting the same vacated from the different tenants has no substance and is liable to be rejected. As per [SECTION] of the [ACT], the Rent Controller is supposed to grant leave to defend to a tenant only if he raises certain triable issues in his affidavit. As noticed already, in the present case the leave to defend application and the accompanying affidavit of the petitioner - tenant did not contain any averment which would have become a triable issue except that the respondent - landlord's requirement was not bona fide since he was living in a C.R.P. 570/2000 rejoinder that the respondent - landlord had sold some rooms after getting them vacated from different tenants having not been raised in the leave to defend application or the affidavit could not be taken into consideration by the Additional Rent Controller and, therefore, the same were rightly not considered as forming part of the leave to defend application."
14.3 Thus, the additional pleas taken by the respondent in his rejoinder [PRECEDENT] cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding his application for leave to defend. However the same are being deliberated upon below for the sake of clarity:
14.4 MCD record does not prove the ownership of father of the petitioner: In view of the first two defences being dealt with in detail the said plea does not need detailed analysis. Even otherwise, the eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller cannot be converted into a title suit and for that the remedy lies before the concerned Civil Court. Hence, the plea does not raise any triable issue.
14.5 170 sq. yards is lying vacant in property no. F-166, Sudershan Park, New Delhi; petitioner can raise much more construction in the same and in property no. WZ-502, Basai Darapur: In the judgment titled as [PRECEDENT] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. Moreover, as has been held in a plethora of cases, neither the Court nor the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord regarding the suitability of the premises or even the extent of the business proposed to be carried out. Thus, neither the respondent nor the court can dictate terms to the land lord as to how to use or construct his own property. Therefore, the plea does not raise any triable issue.
14.6 None of the petitioner's sons or daughters are dependent upon him and the son of the petitioner is earning handsomely: In this regard it has been held by the Honorable High Court of Delhi in [PRECEDENT]: in [CASE NUMBER] decided on 06.07.2012 that:
"6. On the perusal of record, it is evident that the Ld. ARC has opined that the son of the petitioner is financially independent on the basis of his credit card statements. In my opinion such an observation was patently erroneous. Holding a credit card is a common practice and not a yard stick to the financial status of a person. In any case, this issue is irrelevant to the current proceedings due to the fact that even E. No. [PRECEDENT] Page no. 14 of 18 if the son of the petitioner is carrying on his business still as a father the petitioner is obliged to make efforts for setting up a business in a suitable place for his son. Such a requirement is quite reasonable and justified and cannot be termed as malafide. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner is in possession of any alternate accommodation from where his son could carry his business. If a person is owner of a commercial property, but is forced to pay rent towards a tenanted premises, then his requirement for possession of his property is bonafide and must be recognized. The respondent has failed to show as to how the son of the petitioner is not dependent on him for the requirement of the premises for carrying his business. I find no merit in this plea taken up by the respondent and admitted by the ARC. Such unfounded pleas cannot become a reason for denying the petitioner the right to use his property for setting up a shop for his son. In [PRECEDENT], it has been held by this Court that the children are very much dependant on the landlord for the purpose of setting up their business and such a requirement is a bonafide one. The right of the landlord for possession of his property for setting up a business for his son has been also recognized by the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT].
14.7 Thus, it is for the respondent to show that the son of the petitioner is not dependent on him and there is nothing pertinent on record to show the same. Thus, the mere bald averment of the respondent that the petitioner's son is not dependent on him and is earning handsomely would not be fatal to the case of the petitioner. Moreover, dependence, for the purpose of this provision does not necessarily mean financial dependence, but would necessarily include dependence for the purpose of residence. Thus, the said plea does not raise any triable issue.
14.8 The petitioner and his family require a total of only three rooms, however, accommodation of 11 rooms is already available with them: It has been held in the case of [PRECEDENT] decided by our own E. No. [PRECEDENT] Page no. 15 of 18 Hon'ble High Court on 19 May, 2010 that:
"8. It is settled law that it is not for a tenant to dictate the terms to the landlord as to how and in what manner he should adjust himself, without calling upon the tenant to vacate a tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of requirement of landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted. When the landlord shows a prima facie case, a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide, is available to be drawn. It is also settled position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter and it is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. The tenant cannot compel a landlord to live in a particular fashion and method until and unless the requirement shown is totally mala fide or not genuine."
14.9 Thus, it is not for the respondent to tell the petitioner in the present case how the petitioner and his family should adjust in three rooms as per living standards prescribed by the respondent. Moreover, the plea taken regarding the availability of 11 rooms with the petitioner appears to be sham as the same is not supported by any material on record. Hence, the said pleas do not raise any triable issue.
14.10 The petitioner has himself alleged that he recently got one shop vacated in the ground floor of premises no. F-166, Sudershan Park, New Delhi: The petitioner has already stated in his petition that his elder son being practicing advocate has no office in the locality. Hence he got vacated one shop for the office of his elder son. This would not in any way effect his bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises for the purpose of residence of his son. Hence, the plea does not raise any triable issue.
CONCLUSION E. No. [PRECEDENT] Page no. 16 of 18
1[SECTION]Every parent wants to settle his children in the best possible manner and if the petitioner has found it proper to settle his son in the tenanted premises, then it would not be proper for the Court to interfere in such decision of the petitioner, as the petitioner is the best judge of his own requirements and that of the requirements of his family.
16)In the opinion of the Court it is the right of every person to excel in life. If the son of the petitioner and the petitioner is of the opinion that it would be better in life for him to reside in tenanted premises and for the younger son to get married and stay with his father, then it would not be just for this Court to direct the petitioner otherwise or to dictate standard of living to the family of the petitioner. This also draws support from the submission that the petitioner is unable to find a suitable match for his younger son who is of marriageable age due to paucity of accomodation. Thus, the requirement of the petitioner is a bona fide requirement and there is no reason for the Court to find any malafide intention behind the same.
17)The special summary procedure provided for u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] is an exception to the general intent to the Act. The intention of the legislature is to provide an expeditious remedy to landlords who seek eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement under the stringent conditions imposed in the special procedure. Thus, the mere bald averment of the respondent to the effect that the tenanted premises is his sole accommodation cannot disentitle the petitioner from relief that he is entitled to get after fulfilling the stringent requirements provided for in the special procedure. Thus, this submission of the respondents is found to be untenable. Moreover, It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case tiled as [PRECEDENT] that:
"Summary procedure in [SECTION] of [ACT] cannot be defeated by merely making frivolous and vague allegations which can never be substantiated."
18)It is well settled that leave to defend is granted to the tenant in case any triable issue is raised by him, which can be adjudicated by consideration of additional evidence. The mere existence of any triable issue is not sufficient. The nature of the triable issue raised by the tenant must be such that it will disentitle the landlord from [PRECEDENT] obtaining the eviction order.
19)In the judgment titled as [PRECEDENT] (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referring to the judgment of Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini (200[SECTION] 12 SCC 778 observed in para 17 as under:
" It was held that the legislative intent is of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of tenant filed on the ground of requirement by the landlord of the premises for his own occupation; a special category of landlords requiring the premises for their own use has been created; if there is any breach by the landlord, the tenant is given a right of restoration of possession; the landlord who evicts a tenant on the ground of own requirement is not only prohibited from letting out the premises or disposing of the same but also required to use the same for his own residence only "
" the landlord who evicts a tenant on the ground of own requirement is not only prohibited from letting out the premises or disposing of the same but also required to use the same for his own residence only. It was held that these restrictions and conditions inculcate in built strong presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine; the conditions and restrictions imposed on the landlord make it virtually improbable for the landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of tenant unless his need is bona fide - no unscrupulous landlord in all probability, under this Section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the onerous conditions imposed on him. It was further held that this inbuilt protection in the Act for the tenants implies that whenever the landlord would approach the Court his requirement shall be presumed to be genuine and bona fide. It was further held that a heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove that the requirement is not genuine " (emphasis supplied)
20)The whole purpose and import of summary procedure under [SECTION] of the Act would otherwise be defeated. 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 which disentitles the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction, the Court cannot mechanically and in E. No. [PRECEDENT] Page no. 18 of 18 routine manner grant leave to defend. In the light of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and legal propositions, all the pleas taken by the respondents have failed to raise any triable issues regarding the ownership of the petitioner or the land lord-tenant relationship; the bonafide requirement of the landlord; or the availability of any alternative suitable accommodation. The contents of the application for leave to defend have failed to rebut the presumption of bonafide qua the requirement of the petitioner. The application for leave to defend filed by the respondents is thus rejected.
21)As a consequence thereof, an eviction order is passed U/[SECTION], [ACT] against the respondents regarding the tenanted premises i.e One room, situated at the ground floor of the property No. F-166 (middle portion), Sudarshan Park, Basai Darapur, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan
22)However in light of [SECTION] [ACT], the aforesaid eviction order shall not be executable for a period of six months from today.
23)The parties are left to bear their own costs.
24)File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 30th day of August, 2014 [PRECEDENT]