Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anshul Mittal and Mr. Sarthak Tagra, Advs v. PINAKI PRASAD

Judgment

1. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner impugning the order dated 10.12.2018 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned ACJ/CCJ/ARC (South), District Court Saket, New Delhi with respect to the premises i.e., B20, Second Floor, Geetanjali, New Delhi-110017 as shown in colour red in the site plan annexed with the Eviction Petition [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”]. By the Impugned Order, the leave to defend Application filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed.

2. This Court by an order dated 02.08.2023 affixed user and occupation charges in the matter. It is the case of both the parties that user and occupation charges are being paid regularly by the Petitioner. This Court had briefly examined the matter on the last date of hearing as well and had Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:01.04.2025 16:17:45 RC.REV. 343/2019 Page 1 of 16 directed as follows:

“3. So far as concerns the landlord-tenant relationship, the same has not been disputed in view of the fact the challenge is to inter se a compromise and Will executed in favour of the Respondent. The learned Trial Court has also found that the Petitioner has admitted to being a tenant and has also not disputed the predecessor of the Respondent to be the owner of the subject premises. On the aspect of bona fide need, it is the case of the Respondent 4. that the need is for his own use and for use of his family members. So far as concerns the availability of suitable alternate accommodation, the first floor of the subject building was stated to be available with the Respondent. The learned Trial Court has examined the same and found that the Petitioner was unable to show any document regarding the ownership of the first floor of the subject building before the learned Trial Court. Thus, the learned Trial Court found that no triable issue was raised by the Petitioner.

5. In order for the leave to defend Application to be allowed, what a tenant must show is a triable issue and only if the tenant can show material on record in support of its averments that the Court is required to examine the same. The Supreme Court in Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh1 which has also been relied upon in the case of Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua2 has held as follows: “13. … A leave to defend sought for cannot also be granted for mere asking or in a routine manner which will defeat the very object of the special provisions contained in Chapter III-A of the Act. Leave to defend cannot be refused where an eviction petition is filed on a mere design or desire of a landlord to recover possession of the premises from a tenant under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14, when as a matter of fact the requirement may not be bona fide. Refusing to grant leave in such a case leads to eviction of a tenant summarily resulting in great hardship to him and his family members, if any, although he could establish if only leave is granted that a landlord would be disentitled for an order of eviction. At the stage of granting leave to defend, parties rely on affidavits in support of the rival contentions. Assertions and counter-assertions made in affidavits may not afford safe and acceptable evidence so as to arrive at an affirmative conclusion one way or the other unless there is a strong and acceptable evidence available to show that the facts disclosed in the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend were either frivolous, untenable or most unreasonable. Take a case when possession is sought on the ground of personal requirement, a landlord has to establish his need and not his mere desire. The ground under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-