P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Vijay Kumar Ahluwalia and Ors. v. Bishan Chand Maheshwari and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (07 Feb 2017)

While considering grant of leave to contest eviction proceedings under Rent Laws, Authority/Court is not expected to examine merits and demerits of grounds raised

MANU/SC/0129/2017

Tenancy

Instant appeal is filed against final judgment and order passed by High Court of Delhi whereby the High Court dismissed revision filed by Appellants herein against judgment of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by which leave to contest application filed by Appellants-tenant has been dismissed and eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 filed by Respondent No. 1 was decreed. Short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether Courts below were justified in rejecting the application filed by the Appellants under Section 25B(4) of the Act for grant of leave to contest the eviction proceedings filed by Respondent No. 1 against Appellants under Section 14 (e) of Act on merits.

Application filed by Appellants under Section 25B(4) of Act seeking leave to contest eviction application of Respondent No. 1 should have been allowed to enable Appellants (tenant) to contest the eviction application on its merits. In view of grounds raised by Appellants, Supreme Court opined that a prima facie case was made out entitling the Appellants to contest the application of Respondent No. 1 on merits. Grounds raised by the Appellants, if accepted, could result in dismissal of Respondent No. 1's eviction application thereby disentitling him to claim Appellants' eviction from the suit shop.

Ground relating to proof of ownership of Respondent No. 1 over suit shop, which was based on the alleged adoption deed set up by him, for the first time, after 17 years coupled with the ground in relation to devolution of tenancy between the parties after death of Smt. Ram Piari and lastly, the ground relating to bona fide need and availability of the alternative accommodation did disclose prima facie facts within the meaning of Sub-sections 4 and 5 of Section 25B of the Act to contest the eviction application of Respondent No. 1 on merits.

Appellants had not attorned to Respondent No. 1 as owner of the suit shop and, in turn, his status as landlord. There was no evidence to prove existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Specific averments were made by the Appellants to show availability of alternative accommodation to satisfy the need of Respondent No. 1, if it really existed. Grounds, were sufficient for granting leave to Appellants to contest eviction application of Respondent No. 1 on merits.

It is a settled principle of law that while considering grant of leave to contest eviction proceedings under Rent Laws, the Authority/Court is not expected to examine merits and demerits of grounds raised in application for grant of leave to contest and if Authority/Court finds that, grounds raised prima facie disclose a defence which, if accepted, may result in non-suiting the landlord from claiming eviction, tenant is entitled to obtain leave to contest the eviction proceedings on merits. In this case, Appellants-tenant have made out such grounds and are, therefore, entitled for grant of leave to contest eviction proceedings filed by Respondent No. 1 against them on merits. Impugned judgment and order passed by Additional Rent Controlling Authority are set aside. Appellants-tenant are granted leave to contest the application filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 14 of Act on merits.

Relevant : Section 25B(5)of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

Tags : APPLICATION   CONTEST   LEAVE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved