Delhi High Court Affirms Eviction Order in Delhi Rent Control Act Dispute, Rejects Petition on Bona Fide Requirement Claim
Case Name: Scon Financial Services Pvt Ltd v. S C Kaura
Case No.: RC.REV. 358/2023
Dated: May 15,2024
Quorum: Justice Girish Kathpalia
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The present respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, claiming to be the owner of the ground floor flat at 49, Basant Enclave, New Delhi (henceforth referred to as “the subject premises”). The petitioner claimed that, by virtue of a rent agreement, the petitioner (previously known as M/s Sarein Consultants Pvt. Ltd.) was inducted as a tenant in the subject premises with effect from 01.12.1988 for the general manager, Mr. Shiv Kumar Vasesi, for residential purposes.
The rent for the petition was Rs. 2,420/-per month, excluding water and electricity charges. He currently has a legitimate need for the subject premises as a place to live and doesn’t have access to a suitably adequate substitute. Due to his marital strife, he had been living with his sister in the government housing that was assigned to her.
However, on December 31, 2004, when she retired, they moved into her Dwarka flat. He wedded Ms. Promila on July 23, 2005, following the breakdown of his first marriage, and he retired from the military on August 31, 2005. He had been living in several rented properties with his wife since May 2011, during which time she also passed away.
The tenant/petitioner submitted an application for leave to contest after receiving the summons in the prescribed format. In it, they made a wide claim that the respondent/landlord had hidden not only his property but also all other properties, including his dwelling property in New Delhi. The respondent/landlord’s demonstration of a non-genuine demand for the subject premises is demonstrated by the concealing of the additional accommodations that are available to him.
After considering all sides of the argument, the petitioner/tenant submitted a rebuttal to the application for leave to contest. The learned Additional Rent Controller then issued the contested order, denying the petitioner/tenant the opportunity to appeal the proceedings.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act- Vacant possession to landlord. In spite of any other laws that may be in place, if a tenant’s interest in a property is determined for any reason and an order is made by the Controller under this Act to recover possession of the property, all parties who may be occupying the property must abide by the terms of section 18, and the landlord will obtain vacant possession of the property by evicting all such parties from it. However, nothing in this section will apply to any parties who have an independent title to the property.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that from a legal standpoint, the contested order cannot stand. The petitioner, who is also the tenant, contended that the petition is not legitimate since the landlord, who is the respondent, failed to reveal his affiliation with the Green Park property. The respondent, or landlord, filed rent deeds displaying his dwellings in leased premises, but the learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner further contended that as the documents were not registered or stamped, the learned Additional Rent Controller should have seized them.
He also contended that the contested order is unsustainable. On behalf of the petitioner/tenant, it was contended that the petition lacked genuineness because the landlord/respondent failed to reveal his relationship to the Green Park property. The learned attorney representing the tenant/peter further contended that since the respondent/landlord’s rent deeds, which list his houses on leased property, are not stamped or registered, the learned Additional Rent Controller should have seized them.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the current petition is without merit and backed the contested eviction decision. After walking me through the opposing pleadings, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord cited the order dated 18.12.2023 of the previous bench in support of his argument that the petitioner/tenant had not presented any evidence at all to support a leave to contest request, even though notice of the current proceedings had been given to them on the limited portion of the Green Park property.
To bolster his contention that a tenant cannot be granted permission to contest based solely on unsubstantiated allegations, the landlord’s/respondent’s knowledgeable legal representative cited numerous court rulings, such as Abid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 (6) SCC 30; Hari Shankar vs. Madan Mohan Gupta, 111 (2004) DLT 534; and Suresh Chand vs. Vijay Shankar, 2024.
Even though the petitioner/tenant had been informed of the current proceedings on the limited portion of the Green Park property, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord cited the order dated 18.12.2023 of the previous bench to support his argument that they had not provided any evidence at all to support a leave to contest request.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court reviewed in terms of the legal position, the respondent/landlord claims that merely making bald assertions without providing any evidence is insufficient to allow permission to challenge the issues of a bona fide requirement and the existence of a reasonably appropriate alternative lodging.
The court further pronounced that the petitioner/tenant contends that only the allegations made in the affidavit requesting permission to contest are sufficient to create a triable issue; in support of this claim, the petitioner/tenant’s skilled counsel cited the ruling made by the Honourable Supreme Court.
The tenant’s averments in the affidavit requesting leave to contest must be supported by some credible evidence, according to the court’s considered opinion. If this were not the case, clever affidavit drafting would inevitably result in the grant of leave to contest, defeating the very purpose for which Chapter IIIA was added to the Act in 1976.
Regretfully, our judicial system does not guarantee the prompt determination of cases. Under the Delhi Rent Control Act, a tenancy lawsuit may take over ten years, or even longer, to get a final verdict.
Regarding the Green Park property, the petitioner/tenant entered into the record of the current proceedings a few carefully chosen documents from previous court cases involving the Green Park property and Smt. Promila, the now-deceased wife of the respondent/landlord, who was a party to those cases.
Lean legal counsel for the petitioner/tenant attempted to portray the respondent/landlord as having acquired a stake in the Green Park property following the death of his wife by using those handpicked documents.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora
