Mr. H.S. Kohli and Ms. Mannat Kohli, Advocates v. JITENDER PAL SINGH NARANG ANR

Judgment

1. By way of the present petition, filed under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘DRC Act’), the petitioner/tenant has assailed order dated 19.03.2019 passed by Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case No. E- 126/18, whereby, the leave to defend application of the petitioner was dismissed and the eviction order came to be passed in the favour of the respondent/landlord.

2. The record reveals that an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act was filed by the late respondent/landlord in relation to property being i.e. shop no. 4124, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘subject premises’). The respondent-landlord claimed that he required the subject premises for the bona fide requirement of his son Gagandeep Singh for starting his own business. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Date:09.04.2025 14:26:45 RC.REV. 558/2019 ` In his leave to defend application, the petitioner/tenant did not dispute the ownership or landlord-tenant relationship, however, he contended that there were suitable alternate accommodation available to the respondent. The impugned order rejected the leave to defend application of the petitioner, holding that there was no other suitable alternative accommodation except the tenanted premises and no triable issues had been made out.

3. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submits

that the foremost ground for granting leave to defend is that the Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that initially in the eviction petition, the respondent did not mention the details of entire space available with it and only after the disclosure by petitioner of additional commercial properties, the respondent admitted to the same in reply to the leave to defend application. He further submits that whenever a landlord raises a plea of the bonafide requirement, leave to contest shall be granted to test such plea. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Devi Vs Rajesh Kumar Jain reported as (2015) 2 SCC 158.

4. It is next contended that though the respondent- landlord stated that they were engaged in a transportation business, the eviction petition was silent as to its location and that the respondent has deliberately concealed the fact that they are running their business from a 3-storey building on a plot bearing no. 4110, Naya Bazar, Delhi, which is in their exclusive possession. It is further submitted that upon demise of respondent No. 1 on 12.02.2021, son of respondent assumed control of his business, being the legal heir and thereby is running the business from the said property i.e., 4110, Naya Bazar. Lastly, it is contended that the respondent has deliberately created Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Date:09.04.2025 14:26:45 RC.REV. 558/2019 ` paucity of space by letting out/selling different portions of property bearing No. 4124, Naya Bazar, Delhi. It is asserted that on one hand, the respondents are pleading bonafide requirement but on the other hand, sales were made with respect to different portion of the subject property to one Shri Krishan Kant Sharma, who is running his business in the name and style of M/s Ganeshaya Trading Company. To support the above contentions, the petitioner has placed further reliance on Mohan Lal v. Tirath Ram Chopra1, Charan Das Duggal v. Brahma Nanda2, Inderjit Kaur v. Nirpal Singh3, Santosh Devi Soni v. Chand Kiran4 and Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Lt. Col. Satya Prakash5.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord, in response to the petitioner’s contention regarding bona fide requirement, submitted that the respondent owns only one-half portion of the property No. 4110, Naya Bazar, while the other half portion possessed by the respondent is a tenanted portion. It is clarified that only the ground floor and mezzanine floor of the said property are in their possession, whereas the first floor of the said property is owned by a third party. Attention of the Court is drawn to the impugned order, wherein it has been categorically noted that the respondent denied the availability of alternate suitable accommodation within property No.4122 to 4124, as the said property has either been sold, tenanted or being used by the labour. As such, the late respondent was not required to disclose the portions that are already sold or not available with them. It is further submitted that the 1 1982 (3) DRJ 268 2 1983 1 SCC 301 3 2001 1 SCC 706 4 2001 1 SCC 255 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Date:09.04.2025 14:26:45 RC.REV. 558/2019 ` petitioner failed to file any site plan that would contradict the said contention of the respondent. Insofar as one shop in Kamla Nagar is concerned, it is stated that the respondent alongwith his brother is the joint owner and the said shop is being used for storage of the goods booked for transportation to the other cities.

6. It is a settled position in law that while deciding an application for leave to 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;6 Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh7 and Precision Steel & Engg. Works v. Prem 5 194 (2012) DLT 244 6 (1983) 1 SCC 301. 7 1958 SCC OnLine SC 62. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Date:09.04.2025 14:26:45 RC.REV. 558/2019 ` Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal8]. 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 proper and just adjudication. [Ref: Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua9]

7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohan Lal vs. Tirath Ram Chopra & Ors. (Supra) with regards to the facts to be pleaded by the landlord to establish bona fide need, held as follows:- “15…The statements of fact may be as elaborate as the landlord may desire to make, but it will be enough for the landlord to state, in , application for eviction, that he is the landlord and owner of the premises and that the same were let for residential purposes. These are averments of facts. It is not necessary for him to state's to how he became the owner, either by sale, gift, transfer or by will or a family arrangement etc. The law requires the disclosure of all material facts in the pleadings and not the evidence by which they have to be proved. It is for this reason that it is not necessary for the owner of a property to state as to how he became the owner thereof but as bona fide requirement of the landlord or absence of other reasonably suitable accommodation has to be in inferred from all the facts and circumstances, he must plead all such facts and circumstances in his application. He has to show as to how the need for getting the recovery of possession of the premises exists. In this connection he may have to plead the accommodation available with him, the non-existence of any alternative suitable accommodation, the extent of the members of the family dependent upon him and the extent of the need of alternative or additional accommodation…”( Emphasis Supplied)

8. Supreme Court in the case of Inderjeet Kaur vs. Nirpal Singh (Supra) elucidated upon the burden placed on the landlord to establish his bona fide need in the following manner:-

13. We are of the considered view that at a stage when the tenant seeks