Dismissed

Naveen Mehta & Anr. v. Pankaj Sharma

Delhi HC9 Aug 2024RC.REV./87/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged eviction order under Delhi Rent Control Act where tenant failed to file leave to defend within 15 days. High Court dismissed revision, holding delay cannot be condoned as per Supreme Court precedent and tenant deemed to have admitted eviction grounds.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; eviction petition under DRC Act Section 14(1)(e) allowed in favor of petitioner; execution of eviction order barred for six months from order date.

Naveen Mehta & Anr. Vs Pankaj Sharma — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~53

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RC.REV. 87/2023 & CM APPL. 14017/2023

¶4

NAVEEN MEHTA & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through:

¶6

versus

¶7

PANKAJ SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aryan Panwar, Mr. Varun Shankar and Mr. Anand Bhushan, Advocates

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 09.08.2024

¶12

The present petition is filed under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to impugn the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the court of Sh. Deepak Vats, ACJ-cum-CCJcum-ARC, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in eviction petition bearing RC ARC no.35/2022 titled as Pankaj Sharma V Naveen Mehta .

¶13

The respondent filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25-B of the Act on the ground of bona fide need against the petitioners. The summons were ordered to be issued as per the Third Schedule of the Act and the petitioners despite service of summons on 28.10.2022 did not prefer an application for leave to defend. Accordingly, the trial court vide impugned order dated 15.11.2022 passed an eviction order under section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 15.11.2022 reads as under:-

¶14

3. Vide order dt. 16.09.2022 summons under Schedule III of DRC Act were issued upon the respondents. Report was filed by

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/08/2024 at 11:48:32

¶16

Ahlmad that both the respondents were served on 28.10.2022. Section 25 B of the DRC Act provides that tenant shall not contest the prayer for eviction unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtain leave from the Controller. Such leave to contest has to be sought within 15 days from the service of summons i.e. within 15 days from 28.10.2022 in the present case. The period of 15 days has already elapsed and the respondent has not filed any application seeking leave to defend the present petition. Since, such leave has not been sought within 15 days, the assertions made by the petitioner shall be deemed to be admitted by the respondents and the petitioner shall be entitled for order for eviction on said grounds.

¶17

4. Ld. counsel for respondents has sought condonation of delay in filing application seeking leave to defend and has sought sometime to file the application. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case “Prithipal Singh V Satpal Singh (dead) through its LRs.(2010) 2 SCC 15”, has held that the delay in filing the application seeking leave to defend cannot be condoned and the time for filing leave to defend application cannot be extended. Thus, prayer of counsel for respondents to extend time is declined.

¶18

5. Accordingly, the respondents are deemed to have admitted that the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises and that their exists the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. Respondents are also

¶19

deemed to have admitted that the petitioner requires the tenanted premises for bonafide need of his daughter who is dependent upon him.

¶20

6. In the light of aforesaid discussions, the eviction petition U/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act is allowed and the eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25 B of the DRC Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect to tenanted premises i.e. Shop no.5 of plot no.14-l5, Sharma Market, Pul Pehladpur, New Delhi-110044. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the eviction order executed before the expiry of six months running from today.

¶21

7. The petition stands allowed. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

¶22

¶23

The counsel for the petitioners during the course of the arguments referred the contents of the petition. However, the petitioners have not filed application for leave to defend as well as application for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to defend. There is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the trial court.

¶24

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed along with pending application.

¶25

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J

¶26

AUGUST 9, 2024/ j/ak

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/08/2024 at 11:48:32

Naveen Mehta & Anr. v. Pankaj Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Mehta & Anr. v. Pankaj Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abodh Kumar Mandal Vs the Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Its Chief Secretary & Ors.

Pawan Kumar ( Halwai ) Vs Krishan Singla ( Since Deceased) Thr His Lrs

Neeraj Ahuja Vs Neeraj Chhabra

Captain Amit Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Lalit Choudhary & Anr. Vs Pratap Singh & Anr.

Om Prakash Vs Smt. Meenu Gupta & Ors.