Indermeet Kaur, J.@mdashImpugned judgment is dated 20.12.2011; the eviction petition filed by the landlord u/s 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed; the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend had been declined. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement. The petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the disputed premises. This fact is neither disputed and nor under challenge. Disputed premises have been described as property bearing No. 5695/81, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi; it has been depicted in red colour in the site plan which is adjacent the shop from where Vijender Kumar, the elder son of the petitioner is carrying on the business of chemist shop; by way of this petition, it has been stated that this chemist shop is small in size and he wishes to expand his business which he can do so only when the tenanted shop is joined with the existing shop; further contention is that the petitioner himself is a contractor by profession; he has no office to run a business for himself; he is a resident of first and second floor; he would like to maintain an office on the ground floor; further submission being that the portion on the first and second floor which is in occupation of the petitioner and his family is falling short; the family comprises of the petitioner, his wife and two sons; both his two sons are married and they also have two children each; the accommodation available with the family is insufficient. He has no other accommodation in Delhi; his sons are dependent upon him for their need for accommodation. Accordingly the present eviction petition has been filled.
2. The application seeking leave to defend and the averments contained therein have been perused. On the first count, the vehement submission of the petitioner is that the need of the petitioner is a confused need; he himself is not aware whether he requires the disputed premises are required for a commercial purpose or for a residence; contention being that the premises are being used for a commercial purpose and can be put to commercial user only. This submission of the petitioner is devoid of force. Eviction petition has clearly disclosed the need of the landlord to expand the chemist shop of his son. Site plan on record shows that the tenanted portion has been depicted in red colour; it is a shop measuring 8.9''X 7.6'' feet; this shop is adjacent and contiguous with the tenanted shop; the chemist shop is being run by the elder son of the petitioner in an area of 8.9''X6.3 which is much smaller is size; the need of the petitioner is to enable his son (who is dependent upon him for his need for accommodation) to expand this business of the chemist shop. Further submission in the eviction petition is that the petitioner is a contractor by business and living on the first floor; he also requires an office space from where he can conduct his business on the ground floor; both the needs are the needs for his son as also for himself; either of these two needs can be fulfilled if this shop is vacated. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the tenant that the need is confused and the eviction petition has also disclosed the need of the landlord for a residential purpose is a wrong submission. Eviction petition has only detailed the residential accommodation available with the landlord which is an insufficient accommodation for himself and his family members and is on first and second floor; he has nowhere averred that he requires this shop for the purpose of his residence; this submission is thus devoid of any merit.
3. The second additional submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner in this score is that the premises are required for expanding the chemist shop but the license/document placed on record shows that this license of running a chemist is in the name of person other than Vijender who is the son of the petitioner. A photocopy of this document placed on record shows that this document was never a part of the trial court record and did not form a part of the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend. Settled position of law is that triable issues have to be Emanate from the pleadings of the parties which includes the application seeking leave to defend along with the relevant documents; this document not being a part of the trial court record cannot thus be adverted to at this stage.
4. The categorical submission of the landlord in his eviction petition is that the sons are dependent upon him for their need for accommodation which factum has again been reiterated by the landlord in his reply. The viability of the expansion of chemist shop which is being run from a much smaller shop if permitted to be done, would definitely be a profitable venture; the landlord''s need for setting up an office on the ground floor is also a genuine need; it is not in dispute that he is a contractor by profession; it is also not for the tenant or the court to dictate terms to the landlord as to how and in what manner he has to meet his needs for an accommodation. The site plan also evidences the fact that the shop presently in occupation of the elder son of the petitioner is much smaller than the disputed shop. Landlord has been able to establish his bonafide need and the additional requirement that apart from this shop he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
5. No other argument has been urged. Leave to defend should not be granted in mechanically and in routine manner; if this is permitted the very purport and import of the summary procedure contained in Section 14 (1)(e) would be defeated.
6. In this background, the impugned judgment decreeing the eviction petition in favour of the landlord and dismissing the application seeking leave to defend suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
