IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUNALI GUPTA; LD. SCJ-CUM-RC, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI. 

E. PETITION NO. ____/____.

IN THE MATTER OF:

__________                                                            : PETITIONER

VERSUS

___________                                                         : RESPONDENT

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 25-B OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND AND CONTEST THE EVICTION PETITION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS / SUBMISSIONS :-

1.     That the present application for leave to defend is being made within the statutory days of 15 days from the date of service as Respondent has been served with the summons of the above stated petition on ……….. by Regd. Post.

2.     That the petition under reply is abuse of process of law which is evident from the perusal of the petition, therefore is liable to be dismissed.

3.     That the petition under reply has been filed with malafide intention and oblique motive just to harass and humiliate the respondent.

4.     The Respondent  submits that the petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act is not maintainable as the petitioner neither need the premises bonafide for his use nor does he need the same for his family members for any residential  purpose as alleged, hence the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

5.     That it is submitted that this petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has sufficient and individual, vacant accommodation available with him and the premises in dispute is not required by him, hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. However, this averment is without prejudice to the contention that the petitioner neither intends to reside in the subject premises which is under the tenancy of the deponent.

6.     A perusal of the petition, it is the case of the Petitioner that possession is being sought on the ground of personal requirement for residence purposes where as Petitioner admittedly residing in his own ancestral house along with his family son and daughter and have sufficient as well as alternative places which can be used for this purpose, in view of the settled law that a mere desire is not sufficient. It has to be something more than a mere desire and being an enabling provision, the burden is on the landlord to establish his case affirmatively. Admittedly, in the present case, the respondent has in their possession of other properties, this aspect directly goes to the claim of the Petitioner for bonafide requirement of the respondent as also to assess the suitability or otherwise. Thus, the case of the Petitioner is covered under additional accommodation not for bonafide purposes.

7.     That captioned petition is malafide and Petitioner does not need the premises for bonafide purposes as claimed by the petitioner which is evident from following facts:-

A.          That the petitioner claimed the monthly rent of the premises was of Rs. ______/- where as Respondent admitted the same and no dispute about the rent amount.

B.          Admittedly Petitioner is working in a Government Sector as such Petitioner is entitled for government accommodation and there is no document on record that Petitioner has made any efforts to get the government accommodation prior to filling of this petition which means that the need of the petitioner is not genuine.

C.          That the property bearing number ____/_, _______, New Delhi-110008 in two blocks one is named as Front portion is of 4 storey building and rear portion, that Petitioner has his full share in the subject property as same is ancestral building which is being corroborated by the fact that Petitioner is residing with his family brother and mother at second floor of the subject property from last 10 years meaning there by that rent note as shown by the petitioner qua his own tenancy with respect to the second floor of the front portion is a camouflage document which is evident from the fact that electricity meter of the ground floor of the front portion is in the name of the Petitioner himself where as ground floor of the rear portion is with the Respondent and it has separate electricity meter is installed by the name of Mr. ________ i.e. late father of Petitioner.

D.         Besides this Petitioner has another ancestral property bearing ………… consisting of four floors meaning thereby that Petitioner has sufficient alternative places and this petition has been filed only purpose of getting the Respondent evicted by misusing the provisions of DRC as Petitioner does not need the property for bonafide purposes.

E.          In addition to the above, Petitioner is occupying other properties as well in ………… which came into his share through inheritance needless to say, Respondent is making his sincere endaveours to find out the khasara number of those properties.

F.          As stated above, petitioner owns several other properties which is presently not known to the deponent and for knowing the complete details, Respondent is making endaveours to find out the same. The petitioner made absolutely false statements knowing the same to be false that he wishes to shift in the subject premises along with his mother.

G.         That present petition has been filed by the Petitioner malafidely which is evident from the fact that Petitioner  was trying to evict the Respondent from the subject premises form last several years by using different methods, firstly by lodging frivols complaints with the MCD as well as Department of Industries with a hope to get the sealing order thereafter  by putting pressure from the locals and thereafter by filling a suit for possession containing other ground which itself shows that the requirement of the Petitioner is  not bonafide and infect is desire to get the eviction of the Respondent.

8.     That Petitioner through present petition wishes has arbitrary or whimsical action to evict his tenant. As statutory mandate is that there must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is not a mere whim or a fanciful desire by him; further, such requirement must be bonafide which is intended to avoid the mere whim or desire. The 'bonafide requirement' must be in present and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire.

9.     That it is submitted that the petitioner has filed the present petition and made false averments knowingly the same to be false with the malicious intentions to somehow get an Eviction order against the deponent.

10.   That Respondent reiterates that the petitioner has more than enough sufficient accommodation available with him incase if he intends to shift at this property for residential purposes, then there is enough spaces in the same venue which can be used by the Petitioner. The present averment is without prejudice to the contentions that the petitioner does not intend to use the premises for residential purposes.

11.   That the petitioner has more than sufficient accommodation and also have various alternative premises with them.

12.   That the Respondent would be ruined in the event of eviction from the said premises. The comparative hardship would only be for the Respondent as Petitioner states that they are in the subject premises form last so many years.

13.   That the plea to require the property in question for himself and his family members is sheer frivolous and bogus attempt to claim eviction of the Respondent and sheer misuse of section 14(1) (e) of the Act. Without prejudice, it is submitted the petitioner has got more than sufficient accommodation in his possession separately and are not facing any hardship.

14.   That it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is playing the fraud to get the decree by hook or crook from the very beginning itself. That Respondent may prove that the petitioner is guilty of concealment of material facts, misrepresentation and playing fraud upon the Court. That petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble court with clean hands under the facts and circumstances described herein above hence the petitioner is not entitled to any kind of relief by way of its present petition. The petition is liable to be thrown out as per various precedents of various Courts. The present petition is based on misconception of law having no merit, a bundle of lies, misrepresentation, concealment, tainted with fraud.

15.   That the petitioner has more than sufficient accommodation and also have various alternative premises with them.

16.   That the Respondent would be ruined in the event of eviction from the said premises.

17.   The site plan filed is not correct. The measurements of the said premises have not been given.

18.   That the petition is liable to be rejected for want of cause of action.

19.   It is submitted the petitioner has not sent any notice or verbally told to the Respondent  prior to filing this petition except the earlier suit wherein no plea regarding the requirements for the property in question for bonafide purpose. It confirms that the petitioner by way of afterthought have made allegations of alleged requirement just to harass the Respondent.

20.   That the Respondent submits that all the above stated grounds accumulatively raised various triable issues which gives right to the Respondent to defend the said eviction petition, given rise to various tribal issues by this Hon’ble Court and the petitioner further states that the trial on the said issues will clearly show that the petitioner has filed a false and frivolous petition against the Respondent before this Hon’ble Court.

21.   That the petition is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. as the same does not disclose any cause of action.

22.   That the petitioner has not come with clean hands and honest intentions before this Hon’ble Court by concealing material facts and misinterpreting the sequence of events to confirm to their ulterior designs and thus mislead and misguide this Hon'ble Court to decide this suit on wrong facts and circumstance. On this ground alone the petition should be dismissed with exemplary cost.

23.   The petitioner has sufficient accommodation in his possession. In any case petitioner has more than sufficient accommodation with him. The petitioner has made bald and ambiguous allegation and i.e. mother is dependent upon him. That the petitioner has not disclosed whether the suit premises would be suitable to the residential requirement of the petitioner.

24.   That from the above facts it would be confirmed that petitioner do not have any requirement for the property in question and their petition is liable to be dismissed. The respondent are entitled to leave to defend this petition in view of the above facts and also for the reason that the alleged requirement is in the nature of extension of the existing accommodation, the tenant should be given leave to defend and to contest the proceedings on merit.

25.   That as is evident from Section 25(4)&(5) of the Act, burden placed on a tenant is light and limited in that if the affidavit filed by him discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of the possession of the premises on the ground specified in Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act, with which we are concerned in this case, are good enough to grant leave to defend. That the respondent established a strong case which would non-suit the landlord leave to defend should not be granted when it is not the requirement of Section 25(B)(5) of the Act. As per the judgment passed by our own Hon’ble High Court that at the stage of granting leave the real test should be whether facts disclosed in the affidavit filed seeking leave to defend prima facie show that the landlord would be disentitled from obtaining an order of eviction and not whether at the end defence may fail. That as per the facts of this case landlord is not entitled for obtaining an order for recovery of possession and this Hon’ble Court may please grant leave to defend to the deponent. That the respondent has disclosed triable issues whether the landlord has alternate available accommodation and whether the landlord actually intend to live in the subject premises.

26.   That from the above facts it would be confirmed that petitioner do not have any requirement for the property in question and their petition is liable to be dismissed. The respondent is entitled to leave to defend  this  petition in view  of  the  above  facts  and  also  for  the  reason  that the alleged  requirement  is  in  the  nature  of  extension of the existing accommodation, the tenant
should be given leave to defend and to contest the proceedings on merit.

P R A Y E R :-

        It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant leave to defend and contest the eviction petition to the respondent.

DELHI                                                             RESPONDENT

THROUGH

DATED

(__________________________)

ADVOCATES  

____________________,

New Delhi-110013.

IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUNALI GUPTA; LD. SCJ-CUM-RC, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI. 

E. PETITION NO. ___/____.

IN THE MATTER OF:

________                                                       : PETITIONER

VERSUS

_______                                        : RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Sh. _________ S/o Sh. …………….. R/o ______, ___________________, New Delhi-110008, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1.     That I am the respondent in the above noted matter and I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and I am competent to swear the present affidavit.

2.     I say that the contents of paragraphs of the accompanying application under Order 25-B of DRC Act have been drafted by my counsel as per my instructions and the contents of the same have been duly read and understood by me and after fully understanding the contents of the same, I hereby state that the facts stated therein are all true and correct to my knowledge.

3.     I say that the contents of the accompanying application be read as part and parcel of the affidavit as the same are not repeated for the sake of brevity.

                                                                                      DEPONENT

VERIFICATION :-

        Verified at New Delhi on this ___, day of July, 2017. That the contents of above paras of my above affidavit are true and correct. No part of its false and nothing material has been kept concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT