BEFORE THE RENT CONTROLLER: ….,
……. COURT, DELHI
EVICTION PETITION NO.______ OF 20..
In the matter of:
abc
…….. Petitioner
Versus
xyz
……..
Respondent
REPLY TO LEAVE TO DEFEND BY PETITIONER FOR EVICTION
OF TENANT UNDER SECTION 14D READ WITH SECTION 25-B OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL
ACT, 1958.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.
It is submitted that the petitioner has filed a
petition before this Hon’ble Court under Section 14D read with Section 25-B of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for passing decree of eviction against the
respondent in respect of the tenanted shop bearing no... ... It is submitted that the
Hon’ble Court after hearing the matter was pleased to issue notice to the
respondent under Section 14D read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958.
2.
It is submitted that the respondent has filed its
leave to defend … before this Hon’ble Court which contains false, misleading
and baseless averments and that the leave to defend filed by the Respondent is liable
to be dismissed with cost. An order allowing the petition under Section 14D specially
enacted under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for the landlord who is widow
and having right to recover immediate possession of the premise as required for
her own use, shall sub-serve the ends of justice.
3.
It is submitted that the shop was let out / tenanted
in the year ….as ANNEXURE P-9.
4.
It is submitted that the respondent after the death
of the husband of the petitioner had been paying the monthly rent to the
petitioner till date. Thus, the respondent also acknowledges the petitioner as
the owner of the said property including the shop.
5.
It is submitted that the Petitioner is a widow and
an old lady of around …therefore, the Petitioner wishes to reside at the ground
floor of the property for the sake of convenience and living a decent life and
thus filed the present petition. It is submitted that the petitioner relied
upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in In Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery &
Co. 2000 (1) SCC 679 para 10,
it was held as follows:
“………….
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.
……………”
6.
It is submitted that as far as the size of the
family is concern, the said property is inadequate, insufficient and too small
for the whole family to reside and hence the petitioner requires the area of
the shop for the residential accommodation. It is submitted that the Hon’ble
High Court in the matter of Rampratap Sharma vs. Smt. Rukmani Devi 2000 (1) RCR
209 held that the landlord's requirement for even separate pooja room is
bonafide requirement. In present day society landlord cannot be compelled to
have a pooja room in dining room or bed room. In the present petition the
Petitioner is in genuine need of staying in ground floor of her own property.
7.
It is submitted that the respondent (age of the
respondent) started the shop in the year.
8.
It is submitted that after the year 2012, the
respondent wound up the .
9.
It is further submitted that the Respondent has
already enjoyed the tenanted shop for more than ..members she is not even able
to bear her medical expenses as well as medical expenses of the surviving son. It
is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baldev Singh Bajwa
vs. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778 held that whenever the landlord would
approach the court his requirement shall be presumed to be genuine and
bonafide, which has been recently considered by Delhi High Court in the matter
of Tarseem Singh vs. Gurvinder Singh 2010 SCCOnline Del 3537 para 18, which is
reproduced as below:
“…………………………
18. In Sarwan Dass Bange v. Ram Parkash, 2010 IV AD (Delhi) 252, observations
made by Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778, have been quoted 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. 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 in-built 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. The tenant is
required to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by
documentary evidence if available to prove his plea in the affidavit itself so
that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question
of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord; a mere assertion on
the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption
in the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is
real and genuine.
………………..”
10.
It is submitted that the Petitioner does not have
any other property/ accommodation/premises except his right, title and interest
as owner in the said.. .New Delhi-. where the subject shop is situated.
11.
It is submitted that the important aspect is the
Petitioner in order to see her family members settle in their life wanted to
reconstruct the entire property and divide and allocate the said property
proportionately among the family members so that they can have the enough space
for the next generation and also to start up a retail outlet and earn their
livelihood. The petitioner also wants to secure the future of her family so
that they do not have any difficulty in sustaining themselves either for a
dwelling accommodation or shop so as to expand their small family business. It
is submitted that the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in Mahendra Trivedi v. Jai Prakash Verma ILR(2009)III Delhi
676. Relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein:
“……………….
19. It is settled law that each member of the
family requires atleast a comfortable place where he/she can sleep. There
exists a bonafide need
for the respondent to evict the petitioner from the disputed property and the
landlord is not expected to hurdle up together his grown up sons and daughters
in an uncomfortable place and can claim legitimately additional accommodation
which is in possession of the tenant for making his own life and that of his
family members comfortable. The learned Additional Rent Controller thus
carefully considered all the evidence on record and facts and circumstances of
the present case and rightly passed the eviction order in favour of the
respondent and against the petitioner in respect of the suit property.
20. There are around 9 members in the family
existing and the landlord has no separate pooja ghar with him. It is
settled law that neither the court nor the tenant can dictate to the landlord
the mode and manner in which he should live or to prescribe for him the
residential standard on their own. The landlord must be left to assess his
requirement in the background of his position, circumstances and status in the
life and social and other responsibilities and other relevant factors. In
judging his special needs and convenience, certainly the landlord would have a
choice. The tenant cannot compel the landlord to live in a particular
manner and it would be open to the parties to file an application for
appointment of an advocate commissioner to enable the ARC to appreciate not
only the topography of the premises in question but also to appreciate whether
the requirement of the respondent is bonafide or not.
…………………’
12.
It is submitted that the requirement of the
petitioner is absolutely bona fide inasmuch as, in case the respondent vacates
the tenanted shop, the petitioner would be able to stay at the ground floor
since the petitioner is an old lady and is difficult to climb upstairs at this
age. It is submitted that the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Vimla Sharma vs. Veeran Devi 2001 SCC Online Del
857 para 5-6. Relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein:
“……………………..
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held
that the provisions of Section 14-D are calculated to alleviate the plight of a
widow. A liberal approach, as compared to the attitude while dealing with
similar cases under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, has been
advocated by the Apex Court. Little significance can be attached to the fact
that a Relinquishment Deed has been executed by the parties in 2000.
Indubitably, the respondent is a widow and even de hors the Relinquishment Deed is at very least, a
joint owner of the demised premises, by operation of the laws of Succession.
The requirement of Section 14-D of the DRC Act are, therefore, met even without
the Relinquishment Deed being considered.
6. The next question is whether a bona fide case has been established. The petitioner/tenant
has herself pleaded that the respondent/landlady is 70 years old. When this
fact is kept in mind it will become immediately obvious that it would be
reasonable for her to claim the eviction of the petitioner herein on the
grounds that she wished and intended to reside in the premises alongwith her
family members. A reading of Section 14-D of the DRC Act does not indicate that
the need should be exclusively of the widow or that the widow should be the
exclusive owner of the property. As in Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act the residential need of members dependent upon her or as in the
present case where the landlady is dependent on members of her family should
also be legitimately taken into view. There is, therefore, no appreciable
significance in the argument that Section 14-D of the DRC Act does not permit
or envisage an eviction on the grounds of the residential needs of members
other than the widow herself. If the respondent herein, for reasons of old age,
requires her children to shift with her in her home, the need still remains
legitimate and bona fide.
…………………”
13.
It is submitted that the petitioner also relied upon
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pradeep Kumar Khaneja v.
Jagrani 2014 SCC Online Del 1733 para 2,3,5. Relevant para of the said judgment
is reproduced herein:
“…………….
2. The case of the respondent/landlady, and who was
75 years of age when the eviction petition was filed and is now about 80 years,
was that due to her old age she cannot climb to the first floor of the property
where she is presently residing and therefore she needs the property for
her bonafide need. Respondent-landlady
also pleads that her brother-in-law's family is living with her. In my
opinion, however, the only issue is as to whether respondent/landlady is
entitled to shift to the ground floor in view of her old age and which is
presently 80 years as stated above.
3. The Additional Rent
Controller has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction
petition on the ground that the respondent/landlady who is an aged person of 75
years, cannot be forced to climb to the first floor and therefore she has
a bonafide necessity for the room on the ground floor which is
with the petitioner/tenant.
5. All the arguments
urged on behalf of the petitioner/tenant do not carry any weight. The petition
is therefore liable to be dismissed and reasons are given hereinafter.
…………………”
14.
It is submitted that the petitioner also relied upon
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in M/s Satish Raheja vs.
Prakashwati Gupta ILR(2008) Delhi483. Relevant para of the said judgment is
reproduced herein:
“………………
7. For purposes of Section 14D it is immaterial
whether the premises have been let out for residential, commercial or for any
other purpose. What is of relevance is that the widowed landlady bona fide
requires the premises for her own residence. Therefore, if the premises is
capable of being used as a residence, or a part of a residence, and she is
otherwise not in occupation of sufficient accommodation to meet her needs, the
widowed landlady would be entitled to seek eviction of the tenant under Section
14D of the Act. In the present case it is has come on record that the
petitioner-landlady who is now 78 years of age and is suffering from various
ailments is being looked after by her only married daughter, son-in-law and two
grand children.
………………”
15.
It is submitted that the petitioner also relied upon
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh vs.
Saraswati Devi 2009 (109) DRJ 424 para 6,7 & 13. Relevant para of the said
judgment is reproduced herein:
“………………….
6. Before I deal with petitioner's submissions, I
would like to refer to Section 14D of DRC Act, which reads as under:
“14D. Right to recover
immediate possession of premises to accrue to a widow.—
(1) Where the landlord is
a widow and the premises let out by her, or by her husband, are required by her
for her own residence, she may apply to the Controller for recovering the
immediate possession of such premises.
(2) Where the landlord
referred to in sub-section (1) has let out more than one premises, it shall be
open to her to make an application under that sub-section in respect of any one
of the premises chosen by her.”
7. Since the present
eviction petition has been filed by. respondent-landlady on the ground of
Section 14-D of DRC Act, she has to prove only the following three
requirements:
(i) She is a widow;
(ii) She is a landlady;
(iii) She requires the premises for her own
residence.
………………”
PARAWISE REPLY
TO THE PARAS UNDER THE CAPTION ‘TRUE FACTS’
16.
It is submitted that the contents of para 1 are incorrect
and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that the
petition has been filed against wrong person with malafide intention to get
eviction decree against the tenant.
17.
It is submitted that the contents of para 2 are
wrong and vehemently denied.
PARA WISE REPLY TO THE GROUNDS
18.
It is submitted that the contents of para 1 of page
4 are wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that
the ingredients / elements / requirement of Section 14(i)(d) & (e) of the
DRC Act are not made out as such the petition is bad in law ab – initio and is
liable to be dismissed, the petition is otherwise hit by the provisions of
order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and is liable to be dismissed with cost. The averment
made is completely baseless and denied.
It is pertinent to mention here that the petition has been filed under
Section 14D of the DRC Act and alternatively also prayed under Section 14(i)(b)
& (e) read with Section 25-B of the DRC Act, 1958. Contents of section 14D
are reproduced as below:
14D. Right to
recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to a widow. –
(1) Where the landlord is a
widow and the premises let out by her, or by her husband, are required by her
for her own residence, she may apply to the Controller for recovering the
immediate possession of such premises.
(2) Where the landlord referred
to in sub-section (1) has let out more than one premises, it shall be open to
her to make an application under that sub-section in respect of any one of the
premises chosen by her.
19.
It is submitted that the contents of para 3 are
wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that the
site plan attached with the petition is false and incorrect and the petition is
otherwise liable to be dismissed for want of true and correct description of
the property.
It is pertinent to mention here that the site plan attached with the
petition is true and correct. For more clarity with respect to the suit
property / shop, a coloured copy of the map is attached as ANNEXURE P-11.
20.
It is
submitted that the contents of para 4 are wrong and vehemently denied. It is
wrongly submitted by the respondent that the space available with the
petitioner is more than sufficient and she does not require the shop for any
purpose whatsoever,
21.
It is submitted that the contents of para 5 are
wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that only
two years back
………
22.
It is submitted that the contents of para 3 of page5
are wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that
23.
It is submitted that the contents of para 4 of page5
are wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that
the averments made in the petition are self- destructive which clearly shows
that the petitioner does not have any bonafide requirements. It is also wrong
to submit that even otherwise, all the ingredients of section 14 (1) (e) of the
DRC are not made out.
It is pertinent to mention here that the petition has been filed under
Section 14D of the DRC Act and alternatively also prayed under Section 14(i)(d)
& (e) read with Section 25-B of the DRC Act, 1958 and covers all the
ingredient as mentioned in Section 14D, Section 14(i)(d) & (e) read with Section
25-B of the DRC Act, 1958.
24.
It is submitted that the contents of para 5 of page5
are wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that
petitioner has several properties but she is concealing the same from this
Hon’ble Court to misuse the process of law under section 14 (1) (d) & (e)
and section 25B of the DRC Act.
25.
It is submitted that the contents of para 6 of page 5
are wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that
the petitioner has numerous properties both residential and commercial in the
Delhi and out of Delhi which have been concealed by the petitioner which are
lying vacant and locked. It is also wrongly submitted by the respondent that
the petitioner has more than sufficient accommodation.
It is pertinent to mention here that the
Petitioner does not have any other property/ accommodation/premises except his
right, title and interest as owner in the said property bearing …where the
subject shop is situated
26.
It
is submitted that the contents of para 7 of page 6 are wrong and vehemently
denied. It is wrongly submitted by the
respondent that the contents of the petition are vague
and contradictory. The judgments relied
upon by the Respondent has no bearing to the facts of the present case and are
based on a completely different set of facts.
27.
It is submitted that the contents of para 8(i) are
wrong and vehemently denied. It is submitted that the other legal heirs does
not have any objection with respect to this petition. The no objection
certificate of the legal heirs in the form of an affidavit are also attached.
28.
It is submitted that the contents of para 8(ii) are
wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that the
respondent has been paying the rent of both the shops amounting
29.
It is submitted that the contents of para 8(iii) are
wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that the
petitioner is suffering from any ailments.
30.
It is submitted that the contents of para 8(iv) are
wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that the
petitioner cannot live a descent life in the suit property.
It is also pertinent to mention here that on one hand the respondent in
para 3 of page
31.
It is submitted that the contents of para 8(v) are
wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that the
petitioner has another property in .
32.
It is submitted that the contents of para 8(vi-vii) are
wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that
33.
It is submitted that the contents of para 8(viii) are
wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that the
petitioner has sufficient property which is quite specious for her needs and
she has a…which has been concealed.
It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid property of …
34.
It is submitted that the contents of para 8(ix-x) are
wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that the
petitioner’s son is not suffering from liver disease and is employed.
It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner’s son namely …..
35.
It is submitted that the contents of para 8(xi) are
wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that the
petitioner and the family has a big residential building in.. Nagar, several
vacant shops on the first floor and has let out a shop at the ground floor one
and a half year back and tenant is running boutique business.
It is pertinent to mention here that the above wrong submissions made by
the respondent has already been dealt with in para 32 & 33 of this reply.
36.
It is submitted that the contents of para 8(xii) are
wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that the
petitioner does not have any need for the suit property.
It is pertinent to mention here that the important aspect is the Petitioner
in order to
37.
It is submitted that the contents of para 8(xii) are
wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that the
petitioner that the para 18(a) (xiii) of the petition are vague, self
contradictory and mutually self destructive.
It is submitted that it is none of the concern of the respondent with
respect to arrangement of funds as well as sanctioning site plan from MCD and
other concerned authorities. The respondent should mind their own business with
respect to the fund arrangement, sanction plan as well as arrangement with tenant
38.
It is submitted that the contents of para 9(i-viii)
are wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that
the respondent is using his shop as his office as well as warehouse. It is
again wrongly submitted by the respondent that the respondent has changed his
business of selling of surgical goods to have started running …
(i). It is pertinent to mention
here that the respondent started the shop in the year
(ii) That after the year
(iii) That recently it has come to
the knowledge of the Petitioner that the person
(iv) That on … afternoon,
(v) That upon hearing the
aforesaid from the grandson, the whole family including the Petitioner was
surprised and shocked which leads the petitioner to enquire about ….
(vi) That by making some enquiry about …., it seems that the Respondent
has sublet/assigned the rental property to her without any written consent from
the Petitioner.
(vii) It is submitted that the
respondent categorically stated that the respondent has not
(viii) It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent has
categorically denied any sublet of the property of Women’s World is being operated
by from the premises in question. Thus
it is evident that the respondent has filed a false affidavit before this
Hon’ble Court in order to somehow mislead this Hon’ble Court in believing that
the respondent has not sublet the premises.
The petitioner most respectfully states that this Hon’ble Court may
initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondent for filing a false
affidavit. It is prayed accordingly.
(ix) It is reiterated and again
denied that the petitioner has any other property/ accommodation/premise apart
from the property where the suit property is situated. It is also submitted
that the requirement of the petitioner is under the realm of Section 14D as
well Section 14(1) (b) and (e) of the DRC Act and is absolutely bonafide.
39.
It is submitted that the contents of para 10-16 are
wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that
there is no cause of action and no grounds under section 14(1) (d) and (e) of
the DRC Act. It is again wrongly submitted by the respondent that the
petitioner is trying to create false ground for eviction and wants the property
to further let out on higher rate of rent. It isdenied that the petition has
not been properly signed and verified and contains a false affidavit.
It is pertinent to mention
here that the petition has been filed under Section 14D of the DRC Act and
alternatively also prayed under Section 14(i)(d) & (e) read with Section
25-B of the DRC Act, 1958 and covers all the ingredient as mentioned in Section
14D, Section 14(i)(d) & (e) read with Section 25-B of the DRC Act, 1958. It
is again submitted by the petitioner that the suit shop is required for the
personal use of the petitioner as the petitioner is old lady and cannot climb
stairs therefore requires a space in the ground floor of the property.
40.
It is
submitted that the contents of para 17 are wrong and vehemently denied. It is
wrongly submitted by the respondent that
41.
It is submitted that the contents of para 18 are
wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that no
notice was ever served upon the respondent prior to filing of the present
petition before this Hon’ble Court.
It is pertinent to mention here
that a prior legal notice was served to the respondent which also has been duly
admitted by the respondent in para 7 of page 6 of the leave to defend wherein
the respondent has categorically stated that a legal notice was duly served to
the respondent.
42.
It is submitted that the contents of para 19-20 are
wrong and vehemently denied. It is wrongly submitted by the respondent that the
petitioner has no bonafide requirement and the petitioner has more than
sufficient accommodation lying vacant. It is again wrongly submitted by the
respondent that the respondent has a very good defence which infact he does not
have.
It is pertinent to mention here that the petition is filed by …The
petitioner seeks dismissal of the leave to defend filed by the respondent and
an order evicting the respondent under Section 14. In view of the facts and
submissions made hereinabove the present petition deserves to be allowed. It is prayed accordingly.
Petitioner
Through:
Delhi ADVOCATE
,
Dated:__.10.2016
NEW DELHI-
Verified
at New Delhi on this the day of April,
2017 that the contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge derived
from the official records of the respondent and also on the basis of
information received and believed to be correct. No part of it is false and nothing material
has been concealed therefrom.
Petitioner
