Skip to content


Usha Sales Limited Vs. Mohini Nayyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Appeal No. 829 of 1982
Judge
Reported in27(1985)DLT417; 1985(9)DRJ62; 1985RLR333
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)
AppellantUsha Sales Limited
RespondentMohini Nayyar
Advocates: Yogeshwar Prasad,; C.P. Wig and; Sunil Malhotra, Advs
Cases ReferredPrecision Steel & Engineering Works v. Prem Deva
Excerpt:
delhi rent control act, 1958 - section 14(1)(e)--premises were let out to petitioner for the resident of their officer. landlady who was employed in london and was due to retire in 1982, filed in 1980 eviction petition on 'bona fide' need. tenant was refused leave to contest and he appealed to the high court.; that the landlady requires bonafide the premises. the plea that rent has been increased from time to time is irrelevant to her bonafide need. - - this case, in my opinion, is one in which the tenant has failed to disclose a defense and ought to be refused leave......rent controller dated 22nd march 1982. (2) these are the facts. m/s. usha sales limited is a tenant in premises no. c-432, defense colony, new delhi under mrs. mohini nayyar, the landlady. the landlady in september 1980 made an application to the additional controller seeking an order of eviction against the tenant under section 25-b of the delhi rent control act (the act) on the ground of her bona fide need of premises. her main ground was that the premises were let to m/s. usha sales for the residence of their officer, shri j.s. monga, and since mr. monga has gone abroad and left the service of the company and as the premises were lying vacant, she ought to be granted an order of eviction. she also averred that she was residing in surrey, u.k. and is working there as a school.....
Judgment:

Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.

(1) This is a revision petition against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 22nd March 1982.

(2) These are the facts. M/s. Usha Sales Limited is a tenant in premises No. C-432, defense Colony, New Delhi under Mrs. Mohini Nayyar, the landlady. The landlady in September 1980 made an application to the Additional Controller seeking an order of eviction against the tenant under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act) on the ground of her bona fide need of premises. Her main ground was that the premises were let to M/s. Usha Sales for the residence of their officer, Shri J.S. Monga, and since Mr. Monga has gone abroad and left the service of the Company and as the premises were lying vacant, she ought to be granted an order of eviction. She also averred that she was residing in Surrey, U.K. and is working there as a school teacher in Peckham School run by Inner London Educational Authority, County Hall, London.

(3) The Landlady's husband died in 1978. She was due to retire in April 1982 from the school and after her retirement she wanted to shift to India where her brothers and sisters are living. So she filed the eviction case in 1980.

(4) The tenant made an application for leave to defend. The main ground for leave was that the petition is premature because the petition was filed in 1980 while the landlady was due to retire in April 1982. The Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 22-3-1982 refused leave to the tenant. From that order the tenant has come in revision.

(5) Certain facts are admitted in this case. It is not denied that the premises were taken for Mr. J.S. Monga. Nor is this in dispute that Mr. Monga is not residing in the premises as he has ceased to be a Director of the Company. Nor is this in dispute that though the landlady holds a British Passport she has got no other property in India except the one in dispute.

(6) The fact that she was due to retire in April 1982 was not denied by the tenant. All that was said that the application was premature because in 1980 she could not claim eviction when she will need the premises in April 1982. Now April 1982 is long gone. Counsel for the landlady has drawn my attention to an affidavit of the landlady which she made on 1-9-82. She came to India. She swore an affidavit before oath commissioner at Delhi. But since the premises were not vacant she went back to London. Her counsel says that until the premises are vacated the landlady cannot come to India because she has no other place to stay in India.

(7) The Inner London Education Authority has certified to the fact that the landlady will be retiring in 1982 from her post of Head of Chemistry of Peckham School. Now this being established on the record that she was due to retire in April 1982 the Additional Controller refused leave. He found two facts established on the record. One that Mr. Monga has left the service of the tenant Company. Secondly, that the landlady is due to retire in April 1982 and that she has no other house to live in India. On these two grounds he refused leave and made an order of eviction.

(8) Counsel for the tenant says that the two questions which ought to be investigated by the Controller are whether the landlady has a genuine desire to come to India and whether she has actually retired in April 1982. On these two grounds he says that the tenant is entitled to leave.

(9) In my opinion the Additional Controller was right in refusing leave to the tenant. The only defense urged in 1980 when the petition was brought was that it was premature to order the eviction of the tenant when the landlady was due to retire in April 1982. Now from September 1980 to 1985 nearly five years have passed. The landlady is in London. She cannot come to India as she has no other place. She did come to India in 1982 and made an affidavit to the court. But as the case was pending in this court and a stay of dispossession had been ordered she had no other option but to go back. This does not mean that the court ought to refuse eviction or grant leave to the tenant because physically she is not present in India. I see no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of the landlady. There is no denial to the fact of retirement. The Additional Controller said that the tenants' denial is 'vague and negative' in character.

(10) Counsel for the tenant drew my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Precision Steel & Engineering Works v. Prem Deva : [1983]1SCR498 and in particular to paragraph 22 at page 1534. The Supreme Court has said that it is difficult to given an exhaustive list of cases in which the Controller shall grant leave and cases in which he will refuse leave. Any statement of the law will be merely illustrative and not exhaustive. This case, in my opinion, is one in which the tenant has failed to disclose a defense and ought to be refused leave.

(11) Counsel for the tenant then said that the fact that Mr. Monga for whom the premises were taken has ceased to be in the employment of the company ought not to weigh with the court. I do not agree. This is a fact of outstanding importance which I must take into account in granting or refusing leave. Not only does the landlady requires the premises since she has already retired, the very fact that the premises were taken fur Mr. Monga and as he admittedly no longer resides in the premises will take the wind out of the tenant's sails.

(12) Then counsel said that rent has been increased from time to time. But that does not show that the landlady cannot ask for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement.

(13) For these reasons the revision petition is dismissed. The petitioner will pay costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 300.00 .

(14) Mr. Prasad says that some time may be given to the tenant to go to Supreme Court. I stay eviction for six weeks as prayed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //