Mr. Kuldeep Jauhari, Mr. Anubhav and Mr. Sahil Ahuja, Tyagi Advocates with v. AMIT BANSAL

Judgment

1. The present Petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned CCJ-cum-ARC, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application of Leave to Defend/Contest filed by the Petitioner/tenant has been dismissed. The premises in issue are two rooms on the ground floor of property No.1309, Ward No.V, Vaidwara, Maliwara, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed to the Eviction Petition [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”].

2. This Court had an occasion to examine the Impugned Order on two prior dates, i.e., 20.12.2024 as well as on 11.03.2025. It is apposite to extract Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:02.04.2025 20:54:35 RC.REV. 387/2024 Page 1 of 14 the relevant portion of the order dated 20.12.2024, which reads as under: “5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant has raised one contention. It is submitted that the need of the Respondent/landlord is not bonafide. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant that the remaining premises on the ground floor is under the occupation of another tenant (a saree shop). It is further submitted that it is this business that has been projected by the Respondent/landlord for his bonafide need.

6. On the aspect of landlord/tenant relationship, ownership and the availability of alternate suitable accommodation, there is no contest.

6.1 In any event, as can be seen from the Impugned Order, the Respondent/landlord is admittedly a co-owner of the subject premises and no other alternate accommodation has been set out in the Leave to Defend/Contest Application.

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord, on the other hand, draws the attention of the Court to the Leave to Defend/Contest Application filed by the Petitioner/tenant Petitioner/tenant in his Leave to Defend/Contest Application set out that the premises which he is saying is currently tenanted is actually vacant. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord, thus, submits that the plea taken by the Petitioner/tenant before this Court is contrary to his Leave to Defend/Contest Application itself. to submit

8. Issue Notice on this limited aspect.

8.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord accepts Notice.”

3. This Court had thus issued notice in the matter on the limited issue, as stated above.

4. Subsequently, the arguments were addressed by learned Counsel for both the parties on 11.03.2025 as well. On that date, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant requested for some time to take instructions on additional time to vacate the subject premises. On his request, the matter was adjourned to today.

4.1 Today, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant submits that the Petitioner/tenant is “not willing to take additional time to vacate”. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:02.04.2025 20:54:35 RC.REV. 387/2024 Page 2 of 14

5. As stated above, so far as concerns the aspect of landlord-tenant relationship and ownership of the subject premises, there is no contest made by the Petitioner/tenant before this Court. The learned Trial Court also found that there was no challenge before the learned Trial Court as well. In order to make out a case under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act, the landlord is required to show the following: (i) Existence of landlord/tenant relationship; (ii) Existence of bona fide need on the part of the landlord and; (iii)Non-availability accommodation with the landlord. reasonable suitable alternative

6. So far as concerns the availability of alternate accommodation, there is no challenge before this Court. In any event, as stated above, Notice was issued in the matter limited to examination to a shop on the ground floor.

7. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant that the need of the Respondent/landlord was not bona fide as another business was being operated under the name of M/s Deepanshi Sarees from one of the rooms on the ground floor and that GST details of such entity which shows that the business is being operated from the ground floor of the subject premises, have been placed on record before this Court. Thus, it is contended that the need of the Petitioner/tenant is not bona fide.

8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord submits that in the first instance, the documents that have been placed before this Court were also filed before the learned Trial Court along with the Rejoinder. However, by an order dated 27.07.2024, the documents which were filed along with the Rejoinder were not taken on record as being filed belatedly. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:02.04.2025 20:54:35 RC.REV. 387/2024 Page 3 of 14

8.1 In addition, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord that despite these documents not being taken on record by the learned Trial Court, the Petitioner/tenant has filed the documents before this Court. Since, this order was deliberately concealed and was not filed by the Petitioner/tenant before this Court, it is contended that given the conduct of the Petitioner/tenant, no relief can be granted to him.

9. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant that the order dated 27.07.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court was not challenged by the Petitioner/tenant before any Court. The Petitioner/tenant is also unable to give any reason for not filing this order on record, thus, there is a deliberate concealment on part of the Petitioner/tenant.

10. The Supreme Court in Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua1 has while relying on the judgment in Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh2 has held that the Leave to Defend sought for cannot be granted for the mere asking or in routine manner, nor can it be refused on the basis of a mere desire. The relevant extract of the Abid-ul-Islam case is as follows: “16. We may usefully refer to the decision of this Court in Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh [Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh, (2001) 1 SCC 706] : (SCC pp. 711-13, paras 9-13) “… 11. As is evident from Sections 25-B(4) and (5) of the Act, burden placed on a tenant is light and limited in that if the affidavit filed by him discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of the possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act, with which we are concerned in this case, are good enough to grant leave to defend.