Final Order 19

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIGYA GUPTA,
SCJ-cum-RC (NORTH EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI.
RC/ARC No. 23/23
CNR No. DLNE03-000815-2023
Shri Mitthoo Shah
S/o Sh. Syamel Shah
R/o H. No. B-39, Gali No. 4,
Rajender Pandit Wali Gali,
Brahmpuri, New Seelam Pur,
Bhajan Pura,
Delhi-110053. ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Mst. Afsana
W/o Shri Imran
R/o H. No. E-5/316, Khasra No. 58,
Plot No. 74, Gali No. 7, Sonia Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Near Akbari Masjid,
Delhi-110094. ...Respondent
Date of Filing : 18/09/2023
Date of Order : 01/03/2025
ORDER
1. Present petition U/Sec. 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 (hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act”) has been filed by the
petitioner for eviction of the respondent from
the tenanted premises
i.e. H. No. E-5/316, measuring about 30 Sq. Yards, Khasra No. 58,
Plot No. 74, Gali No. 7, Sonia Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Near Akbari
Masjid, Delhi-110094, as shown in red colour in the site plan
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tenanted Premises') in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondent.
2. It is averred by the petitioner that he is the owner/ landlord of
H. No. E-5/316, measuring about 30 Sq. Yards, Khasra No. 58, Plot
RC/ARC No. 23/23
	Mitthoo Shah Vs. Mst. Afsana
Page 1/6
-- 1 of 6 --
No. 74, Gali No. 7, Sonia Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Near Akbari
Masjid, Delhi-110094, as shown in red colour in the site plan. The
petitioner had let out the property/premises to the respondent
namely Mst. Afsana, W/o Sh. Imran, with her family on 15.09.2016
by way of oral tenancy for residential purpose against montly rent of
Rs. 1500/-, which was enhanced from time to time and currently, the
rent is Rs. 2500/- per month, excluding electricty/ water charges etc.
Further, the premises/ property is already having the necessary
amenities like lighting, water, sanitation, furniture etc.
2.1. It is further stated that the petitioner is having another
premises bearing H.No. B-39, Gali No. 4, Rajender Pandit Wali
Gali, Brahmpuri, New Seelampur, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053
wherein the petitioner has been residing with his family members
consisting of three married sons namely Zahid, Shahid and Wahid
alongwith their respective families. That the petitioner and his wife
have been residing with his son namely Wahid, on the third floor of
the aforesaid premies whereas his two other sons are residing on the
first and second floor, alongwith their respective families.
2.2. The petitioner avers that he is a senior citizen aged about 74
years and requires the suit property/premises in question
bona fidely
for his personal use/ residence as he wants to live peacefully at the
ground floor with his wife who is also a senior citizen. It is stated
that it is not possible for the petitioner to climb upto third floor or
get down on a daily basis for the purposes of his daily necessities,
hence, the petitioner wants to live at the ground floor alongwith his
wife. Further, petitioner has many relatives who visit him as guests
and as such, he requires sufficient space for guest/ visiting room at
first floor of the suit property/ premises in question. Further, being
RC/ARC No. 23/23
	Mitthoo Shah Vs. Mst. Afsana
Page 2/6
-- 2 of 6 --
the owner/ landlord, he requires the suit property/ premises for his
own residence as well as for his wife. It is stated that the plaintiff
has no other suitable residential property/accommodation available
with him in Delhi except for the proeprty in question.
2.3. Lastly, it is prayed that an eviction order may be passed
against the respondent and in favour of petitioner.
3. I have carefully gone through the entire record and heard Ld.
Counsel for the petitioner.
4. During the course of arguments, clarifications regarding the
applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 to the suit property
were sought. Notifications in respect to the urbanization of the area
in question were filed by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. Report
from the SDM concerned was also called as per which the area in
question was urbanized in the year 2020 and the DRC Act was
applicable accordingly.
5. Perusal of the record would reveal that the notice of the
eviction petition issued to the respondent in the prescribed format
vide order dated 18/09/2023 by way of ordinary mode was received
back unserved. The respondent, however, appeared before the court
on 23/11/2023 and admitted that the notice was served upon her on
17/10/2023. She stated that she had not received the copy of the
petition and documents. The copy was accordingly supplied to the
respondent and opportunity was given to her to file the application
for leave to defend within the statutory period from 23/11/2023.
Leave to defend was never filed on behalf of the respondent. It is
apposite to note that the leave to defend has to be filed by the
RC/ARC No. 23/23
	Mitthoo Shah Vs. Mst. Afsana
Page 3/6
-- 3 of 6 --
respondent within the stipulated period of 15 days, however, the
respondent chose not to file the leave to defend within the period of
limitation.
6. It is well settled proposition of law that this court does not
have any right to condone the delay of even a single day. In the case
titled as “Ramesh Tuli Vs. Sharda Kapur 153 (2008) DLT 302, the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:-
“The only question raised in this petition is whether
the Additional Rent Controller has power to
condone the delay in filing application U/Sec. 25-B
of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioner in this
case was served with a notice of the petition filed
U/Sec. 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act r/w
Sec. 25-B. The petitioner was supposed to file an
application for leave to defend within 15 days
however, the petitioner filed this application beyond
the period of 15 days and was filed after about 22
days. The Ld. Additional Rent Controller dismissed
the application and allowed the eviction petition.
The issue raised by petitioner is no more res integr.
This court in Prithi Pal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh, 133
(2006) DLT 686, had held that Court of Additional
Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain an
application U/Sec. 25-B which is filed beyond the
period of 15 days and the provisions of the
Limitation Act are not applicable. The court had also
referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in
Prakash Jain Vs. Marie Fernandes VI (2003) SLT
266= 2004 RLR 83 (SC) in support of this view.
In view of settled proposition of law I find no merit
in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.”
In the present petition, no leave to defend has been filed.
7. It is further apposite to note that even if application for leave
to defend has not been filed, the court still ought to satisfy itself that
all ingredients of section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act have been made out.
In this context, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in the case of Ramesh Basandara Vs. Moti
Ram, 2003 RLR 539.
RC/ARC No. 23/23
	Mitthoo Shah Vs. Mst. Afsana
Page 4/6
-- 4 of 6 --
8. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the
petitioner is the owner and landlord and respondent is the tenant of
property no.
H. No. E-5/316, measuring about 30 Sq. Yards, Khasra
No. 58, Plot No. 74, Gali No. 7, Sonia Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Near
Akbari Masjid, Delhi-110094, as shown in red colour in the site
plan filed alongwith the eviction petition (hereinafter referred to as
the tenanted premises). It is pleaded that the tenanted premises is
bonafide required by the petitioner for himself for residential
purposes as he is a senior aged around 74 years. He states that he is
presently residing at the third floor of property no. H. No. B-39,
Gali No. 4, Rajender Pandit Wali Gali, Brahmpuri, Delhi-110053
and it is extremely difficult for him to conduct his day to day
functions due to old age. He intends to spend the evening of his life
in a comfortable abode and states that he does not have any other
reasonably suitable accommodation for this purpose.
9. Section 25-B (4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act provides that
the tenant shall not contest the prayer for eviction unless he files an
affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the
application for eviction and obtains leave from the controller. Such
leave for contesting has to be sought within 15 days from service of
summons which in the present petition can be calculated from
23/11/2023 when the copy of the petition was supplied to the
respondent. As such, record manifestly shows that service of the
petition as prescribed under Schedule-III, was effected on
respondent Mst. Afsana on the given address, on 17/10/2023 and
further copy was supplied on 23/11/2023 and no application for
leave to defend was ever filed by the respondent. Since such leave
has not been sought within 15 days, the assertions made by the
landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be
RC/ARC No. 23/23
	Mitthoo Shah Vs. Mst. Afsana
Page 5/6
-- 5 of 6 --
admitted by the tenant and the petitioner shall be entitled for an
order for eviction on the said ground. The respondent is deemed to
have admitted that petitioner is owner of the tenanted premises and
that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the
petitioner and the respondent. He is also deemed to have admitted
that the petitioner requires the premises bonafide for his own
requirement as he intends to utilize the same for residential purposes
and that he does not have any other reasonably suitable
accommodation.
CONCLUSION:
10. Therefore, the eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent
Control Act is allowed and an eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1)
(e) r/w Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondent in respect of property no.
E-5/316, measuring about 30 Sq. Yards, Khasra No. 58, Plot No. 74,
Gali No. 7, Sonia Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Near Akbari Masjid,
Delhi-110094, more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan
filed with the eviction petition.
11. However, this order shall not be operative before the expiry of
six months from today keeping in view Sec. 14 (7) of D.R.C. Act.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court
On 01/03/2025
(PRIGYA GUPTA)
SCJ-cum-RC (NORTH EAST)
KKD COURTS, DELHI
RC/ARC No. 23/23
	Mitthoo Shah Vs. Mst. Afsana
Page 6/6
-- 6 of 6 --