Revision petition dismissed. High Court refused interference with Additional Rent Controller allowing leave to defend, applying Supreme Court guidelines to landlord's foreign settlement status.
Revision petition dismissed in limine; eviction petition to be disposed of earliest by trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified RC.REV.283l20lr Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data i s as p er the physical file and no page is missing.
z7
page 107 to 109, with the ofFtce of the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi. The petitioner is, thus the owner/landlord ofthe said premises. The petitioner has no other reasonably suitable commercial premises/accommodation available to him.The premises are require bona fide by the petitioner for startinghis own business and a School for Acting, Drama andPerforming Arts.
(ii) That Dr. Sushila Nayar was allotted Flat No. 32, NewCentral Market, New Delhi (now called Shankar Market,Connaught Place) vide order No. HRO/NIG/10939 dated20th December, 1957 by the office of Housing and Rent OfFtcer, Delhi,Gokhale Market, Delhi. Subsequent thereto, the Directorateof Estatesof the then Ministry of Works & Housing, Governmentof India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhigranted Ownership/Leasehold rights of Flat No. 32, Shankar Market, ConnaughtPlace,New Delhi to Dr. SushilaNayarvide letterNo. DE/\4KT/FL32AICM dated 1 5tr' January, 1979.
a
RC.REV.283/2011
Paee2 of 6
3
the petitioner has filed evictionpetition againstall other tenants as well.
{
The respondent after enteringappearancesought leave to defendeviction petition as required under Section 25-B(4) ofthe Delhi Rent Control Act,1958. The learned Additional RentControllerhas allowedthe applicationfor leave to defend moved by the respondent vide impugnedorder. Regarding the bona fide requirement of the petitioner in respect ofthe premises in question,the learned Additional Rent Controller hasdealt withthe plea raised by the respondent that the petitioner does not require thepremis es bona fideandhas acceptedthatplea. The relevant portion of the impugned orderdealing with that plea is reproduced
below:-
"Further, it is the contention ofthe respondent that the applicant does not require thepremises forhis bona fide use and has no immediateplan to come to Delhi. Inthis regard, the attention of the Court has beendrawn on the contents of the applicationand the affrdavit of applicant filed in reply to the affidavitof the respondent. In his application, the applicant has statedthat he intendsto move back to India once he can make his schoolfor acting, drama and performing arts, a sustainable business.Further,in paragraph no. 17 of his counter affidavit,the applicant has stated that he intendsto permanentlymove backto India in the next 5-6years. Fromthe contentsofthe applicationas well as the counter affidavit, it appearsthat the applicant has no immediate plan to move back to India. Fromthe counter affidavit of the applicant, it alsoappears that he does not want to run the schoolunderhis direct control by staying in India butinstead wants to run such school through other agency. On the basis ofthe contentsof the counter affidavit and the application,as Ihavealready observed, the contention of therespondentis thatthe premises are not required by him forhis immediateuse; whereas, the contentionof the applicant is that hehasbona fideintentionand determinationto open a school in the
RC.REV.283/2011
Pase 3 of6
\
premises once the same is got vacated fromthe respondent and other tenants. In the consideredopinion of the Court in the light of the contents of the affidavitsqf the respondent and the applicant, there isa triable point regardingthebona fideof the applicantin openinga schoolandsuch bonafide intention cannot be tested unlessthe applicantis examined in the witness box. Obviously,thereis a triablepoint on this aspect of the case."
..'<
It has been submitted by thelearned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid reasoning given by the learnedAdditional Rent Controllercannot be sustained at all and the leave applicationshould have beenrejected on the ground that it did not disclose anytriable issue at all. Learned counselfor the petitioner has placed reliance on onejudgment ofthe Hon'bleSupremeCourt in "Sarla Ahuja Vs. tlnited Intlia InsuranceCompany Ltd.', (1998) I SCC 119 andone decision of this Court in "sarwanDossBange Vs. Ram Prakash',2010 IV AD (DELHI) 2s2.
I have considered the avermentsmadein the eviction petitionas wellas the pleas raised by the respondentwhileseeking leave to defend and also the aforesaid reasoning of thelearnedAdditional RentController to the effect that the respondent has raised triable issueregarding bona fidercquirement of the petitioner. I do not find any materialirregularityor perversityin the said reasoning of the AdditionalRent Controllerjustiffingany interference by this Court in exercise of its revisionaljurisdiction.The judgmentscited by the counsel for the petitioner were rendered on thefacts ofthosecases and as far as the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Courtwhich have to be kept in mind by the Courts while decidingsuch like leave applicationsfiled by the tenantsare concerned the trial Court has after referringto various judgmentspassed the impugned order keeping in mind thoseguidelines. In oneof the judgments of the Supreme Court in"IntlerjeetKaur vs. Nirpal Singh', JT 2001 (1) 308'which has been relied upon by theleamed Additional Rent Controlleralso in the present case in the impugned order, thelandlord and his familywere settled in United Kingdom and the evictionpetition under Section 1a(1)(e)of the Delhi Rent
Page 4 of 6
RC.REV.283/2011
s
F(
Control Act was filed by the landlordagainsthis tenant in his propertyin Delhi alleging that though he wasearlier permanently settled in the UnitedKingilom but he had retumed back to Indiato settle here and that his son wasstill there but he had also decided to returnto India after winding up his affairsin the United Kingdom. The tenant inthat case hadsought leaveto defend the eviction petition and one of the pleas taken byher was that the landlordand his family were permanently settled in the United Kingdomand had no intentions of coming back to India. The AdditionalRent Controller had declined leave to defend to the tenant and this Court alsodismissed her revision petition filed againstthe order of the Additional Rent Contoller.The tenant tookthe matterto the Supreme Court where the orders of theAdditionalRent Controllerand this Court were set aside by the Supreme Court bymakingthe followingobservations in para no. 17 of judgment:
" 17. With the background, we now turn to the facts of the casein hand. It is clear fromthereading of the order of the Addl. RentController that he has takenpains to writean elaborateorder as if he waswriting an order after a full-.dressedtrial of evictionpetition he has considered merits of the iespeciive contentionsat the stageof grantingleave to defend under Section iSAp withoutkeeping in mind the scope of the provisionsand statutory duty cast on him.He exceededthe jurisdictionvested in him in refusing leave todefendto the appellant. It appears to us tha! he did not focushts attention to the scope and contentof Segtion 2!B(5).^-Hcning regard to the facts staedand groundsraisedin the affidavit filed -bythe appellant trriing leave todefend whichwe havealready narratedabove,it is not possible to take a view thatno triable issue arose forconsideration. Thefacts stated in the affidavit oftheappellant in support of his application seeking leove todefendprima faciedo disclose that the respondentwould be diintitled to obtainan order forthe recoveryof possessionof the premises from the appellantparticularly whenother cases are pending between the parties anddefencedoesnot appear to be frivolousor untenable on the face of it.TheAddl.Rent Controllerhas actedwith material irregularity andcommitted a manifest ewor in acceptingthecase of the respoident-landlordwhen the factswere seriously disputed andthe correctniss or otherwise ofthe documentsrequiredto be examined. llhether the suit premises wasused forresidential-cum-commerciol purposes from the inception and whetherthe respondent and his son and -otier mentbers of the family are permanently and comfortably settled in U.K. and whetherthe requirementof the premisesby the respondentwas bona fide, arethe ntaters-which could not be adiudicateda1 hasb-eendone by thL Addl. Rent Controllerat the stageof dealingwith the application to grant leave to defend. In this view ofthe matter, we have no hesitationto say that the orderpassed bythe Addl. Rent Controller refusing leave to defend to the appellantcannot be sustained.(Jnforh.mately,theHigh Court also has apriiaitwithout taking into considerationthe correct legal
Paee 5 of 6
RC.REV. 283/20rr
position indicated above having regardto the factsof the case.We are of the view that the Addl. Rent Controllerand the High Court both were in error in refusing tograntleave to the appellantto contestthe eviction petition."
The afore-said observations ofthe SupremeCourt fullysupport the case of the tenant herein. In fact, inthe presetcase,the landlord undisputedlyis still living in U.S.A.
This revision petition is accordinglydismissedin limine.The judgments cited by the counsel forthe petitioner were renderedon the facts of thosecases and so of no help to thepetitioner.
i/
Learned counsel for thepetitionernow submits that at leastthe leamed Additional Rent Controllershould be directed to dispose of the eviction petitionat the earliestpossible considering the fact that it is a case of bona fiderequirement of the landlord. It is needless tostate and it is hoped also thatthe learned trial Court shall make all efforts todispose of the eviction petition at the earliest possible. \NS^ . \
AUGUST 03,20lllpg
r;-'-
RC.REV.283/2011
Paee 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Additional Rent Controller committed a material irregularity in allowing leave to defend an eviction petition on a bona fide use plea.
Whether the landlord's statement of intent to return to India after setting up a school establishes a triable issue regarding bona fide requirement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.Referred¶24
Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., (1998) 1 SCC 119 · Who else cites this
Sarwan Dass Banga Vs. Ram PrakashReferred¶24
Sarwan Dass Banga Vs. Ram Prakash, 2010 IV AD (DELHI) 252
Intereet Kaur vs. Nirpal SinghExplained¶25
Intereet Kaur vs. Nirpal Singh, JT 2001 (1) 308 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Harsh nalwar
Tenant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
