RC. Rev. No. 136/2012 & C.M. No. 5383/2012. Case: Dr. Jain Clinic Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sudesh Kumar Jassal. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | RC. Rev. No. 136/2012 & C.M. No. 5383/2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. G.P. Thareja, Adv., Mr. Alok Kumar, Ms. Manisha Agarwal and Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advs. and For Respondents: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv., Mr. Tejas Karia, Mr. Karan Mehra, Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Mr. Arjun Palli and Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Advs. |
| Judges | Manmohan Singh, J. |
| Issue | Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14, 14(1), 14(1)(e), 25, 25B; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 116 |
| Judgement Date | August 22, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Manmohan Singh, J.
-
The abovementioned revision petition under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the "Act") has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 13th December, 2011 passed by the learned RC whereby the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner was rejected in the eviction petition preferred by the respondent, mainly, on the ground that the respondent is the owner of the demised premises and bona fidely require the premises for his own residence and has no other alternative accommodation. Thus, as per the learned RC, the respondent's case falls within the ambit of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The brief facts leading up to the passing of the impugned order and consequently the present petition are enunciated as under:
It is stated that the petitioner is the tenant of the respondent in the suit property situated at A-14, Ground Floor, NDSE-II, New Delhi-110049.
-
The said property which consists of three bedrooms, one drawing room, one kitchen, two bathrooms, and including verandah, front lawn, parking place and back courtyard (hereinafter referred to as the "Demised Property") was given on lease to the petitioner for residential purposes.
-
The tenancy was created on 15th November, 1983.
-
At the time of filing of the eviction petition, the case of the respondent was that he along with his father, Late Sh. Kewal Krishan Jassal had executed an agreement with the petitioner whereby the demised premises was given on lease to the petitioner for the residential purposes only and for no other purposes. After the sad demise of the respondent's father on 17th September, 1989, the premises became the sole property of the respondent pursuant to Deed of Family Settlement dated 11th May, 2007 executed between the legal representatives of late Sh. Kewal Krishan Jasal. The mutation of the said property was also effected in the name of the respondent by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide Mutation Order dated 30th April, 2010.
-
It has been the case of the respondent in the eviction petition that the respondent is 64 years of age and is suffering from serious ailments, i.e. a chronic skin disease called Plaque Psoriasis and is under the care of, and receiving ongoing treatment from Royal Victoria Infirmary Hospital in the United Kingdom. As part of the treatment for this disease, respondent is receiving UVB Phototherapy under which he is exposed to ultra violate radiation from artificial sunlight sources. The respondent is also suffering from Psoriatic Arthritis, as a result of which he has joint pains in his hands, wrists, feet and legs due to the cold climatic conditions in the United Kingdom. He is undergoing the treatment for this disease from Rheumatology Department of the Freeman Hospital in Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, since 2002. The respondent has been advised that the best therapy for Plaque Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis is to have maximum exposure to natural sunlight and living in a warmer region like India. He has been strongly advised by doctors to shift to a warmer region on account of the abovementioned ailments.
-
It has also been stated in the eviction petition that Prof. N.J. Reynolds, Consultant Dermatologist at New Castle upon Tyne Hospitals, has recommended the respondent to shift to India for the treatment. Besides him, Dr. P.N. Platt, Consultant Rheumatologist at the New Castle upon Tyne Hospitals, has also recommended to respondent to shift to warmer climatic conditions and has advised him to shift back to India. The respondent would be undergoing the phototherapy treatment for the fourth time. On account of his illness, he has decided to shift to India and stay in the premises which is owned by him. Thus, the respondent is in bona fide requirement of the premises and has no alternative residential accommodation to stay in India. On account of the nature of the disease and the treatment, the respondent would be required to live in New Delhi at the premises in order to receive better medical attention.
-
The respondent would require the entire premises as he would be residing in the premises with his wife and would be receiving his children and relatives settled in the United Kingdom from time to time. Besides this, it is stated that the petitioner is also liable to vacate the premises on the ground of using the same for commercial purposes, even though they were leased for residential purposes only and for no other purpose. The respondent never granted any permission to the petitioner to use the premises for commercial purposes. The use of the premises for the purposes of running a clinic by the name of Dr. Jain's Clinic is in violation of the agreement and also detrimental to the interests of the respondents. The premises was once sealed by the authorities on account of usage of the premises for commercial purposes by the petitioner.
-
The application for leave to defend was filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, on the following grounds:-
(i) The respondent is not the owner of the suit property. The alleged illness suffered by the respondent i.e. Plaque Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis can be managed by Ibuprofen, a simple pain killer. The Psoriasis is a heredo-familial disease. It is not a chronic disease. It can be managed. The adequate treatment of the disease is available in UK. The sunshine is available in UK also. The respondent need not shift to India merely to have sunshine or natural light.
(ii) The medical advises filed with the petition do not show that any doctor has recommended the respondent to shift to India, rather the alleged advises show that they are procured and/or merely record the respondent's statement of his alleged keenness to move back to his house in India.
(iii) The respondent is a British citizen. He has lived in UK for the better part of his life. There is no reason for him to shift to India at this stage of life.
-
In rejoinder of his application for leave to defend, additional grounds were also taken namely that the pleadings have been signed by Ms. Neelu Jassal (who is the wife of the respondent) on the basis of a General Power of Attorney (GPA) executed by the respondent but that does not give power to her to file such affidavit. As the pleadings are signed by her, it indicates the respondent is not interested in the matter. Lastly the printout of the internet advertisement at matrimonial.com for the marriage of the son of the respondent wherein an information was given by the son of the respondent in the advertisement that, "the parents' plan to semi retire and reside in a to be newly constructed 2nd Family Home in the Coastal/Riviera region of the South of Spain in the future mainly for climatic and lifestyle reasons. This would also act as a regular holiday home for the whole family.
-
After considering the rival submissions of both the parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi dismissed the application of the petitioner for leave to defend vide impugned order dated 13th December, 2011. Six months time was granted to the petitioner to vacate the demised premises at Ground Floor of House No. A-14, NDSE Part-II, New Delhi. The learned trial Court has rejected all submissions of the petitioner.
-
I have gone through the records of the present case including the impugned order and the grounds raised in the petition. I have also considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at the bar. Having gone through the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the grounds raised in the petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial