Mr.Shivam Sharma Mr.S.K Nanda, Advocates v. SMT REKHA SHARMA

Through: Mr.M.L. Vashistha, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. By way of present revision petition filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, ‘DRC Act’), the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by ARC-02 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Eviction Petition No. RC/ARC No. 370/2021 (hereinafter, ‘impugned judgment’) with respect to premises being Private Shop No. 40 (old) New No. 10 in property No. 1977, Ground Floor, Katra Lachhu Singh, H.C. Sen Road, Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110006 (hereinafter, ‘subject premises’) whereby the petitioner’s application seeking leave to defend came to be dismissed.

2. The petitioner/tenant has primarily challenged the impugned order stating that the respondent/landlady has alternate suitable accommodation available. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to paragraph 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Date:08.04.2025 15:57:44 RC.REV. 53/2025 of his application for leave to defend, submits that the petitioner has made a categorical assertion that the first floor of the subject premises has three shops which are lying vacant. He further submits respondent/landlady, in her reply to the leave to defend application, did not controvert the aforesaid position. In fact, it is stated that the factum of the aforesaid three shops was neither admitted nor denied and that the same was rather concealed in the eviction petition, making it a triable issue. Reference is made to paragraph 8 of the respondent’s reply filed to leave to defend application, which is reproduced hereinunder: “8. That the contents of Para 9 of the application for leave to defend is wrong and denied. It is denied that the present petition is very much bad in the eyes of law that the petitioner has not mentioned in her entire petition that she has no other reasonable, suitable accommodation for herself to earn her livelihood. It is submitted that the petitioner has put on record sufficient documents on record to show the properties in her possession. The site plan pertaining to them was mistakenly omitted while filing and the same is being put on record. It is denied that the second floor of the abovesaid property also being used for commercial purpose buy the petitioner/landlady. It is submitted that the second floor is residential premises and the Petitioner is residing there.”

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, states that the Site Plan filed alongwith the reply to leave to defend application mentions the existence of three shops, therefore, the same was never concealed, and that the said shops are currently under occupation of other tenants. It is submitted that the said three shops are not suitable or available and that the respondent has bona fide commercial requirement of the subject premises for the use of herself and her son, to earn their livelihood. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Date:08.04.2025 15:57:44 RC.REV. 53/2025

4. It is a settled position in law that while deciding an application for leave the defend, the Rent Controller must examine only whether a prima facie case is made out by the tenant raising issues which may be triable in nature, irrespective of the final outcome of the pleas so raised. Therefore, at the stage of leave to defend, the threshold to be crossed by the tenant is rather low and there is no need for the tenant to lead incontrovertible evidence proving the same; that is to be determined at the stage of trial. In terms of the burden placed on the landlord, while a presumption may exist in their favour as to the bona fide need claimed, once an averment is made to that effect and landlord-tenant relationship is established, it is still the responsibility of the landlord to make out an apparent case of sufficient and reasonable need as well as an absence of alternate accommodation to meet the same. Any material doubt raised as to those issues become triable in nature, warranting grant of leave to defend in favour of the tenant. Needless to state, such an issue cannot be frivolous in nature or raised for the sake of raising a defence, and must be something tenable, even if it might ultimately collapse at trial. [Ref: Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nand;1 Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh2 and Precision Steel & Engg. Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal3].

5. In other words, while at the stage of leave to defend, the tenant need not establish a fool proof case fit for rejection of the petition for eviction in totality, the grounds raised must also not be mere assertions and must raise a triable issue such that gives rise to a necessity for it to be tested at trial for a