SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 120

2000(5) Supreme 109
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Majmudar & D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.
Santosh Devi Soni -Appellant
versus
Chand Kiran -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 412 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14765 of 1999)
Decided on 17-1-2000

IMPORTANT POINT
In the cases where additional accommodation is asked for in proceedings under Delhi Rent Control Act, normally leave to defend should not be refused.

Headnote:Delhi Rent Control Act-Eviction-On ground of requirement of additional accommodation-Leave to defend-In cases where additional accommodation is asked for normally leave to defend should not be refused-Refusal to grant leave to defend unjustified-Matter remanded for decision on merit. (Paras 3 and 4)

       

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. By consent of learned counsel for the parties we have heard this appeal finally.

3. The short question is whether in the light of the requirements put forward by the respondent-landlady who is a widow and is in occupation of the first floor of the building in which the suit premises are situated leave to defend to the defendant-appellant could have been refused. As this is a case for additional accommodation and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in the light of the additional accommodation which is subsequently made available to the respondent as mentioned by the appellant, the question of respondent s need was required to be thrashed out on merits by a full-fledged trial. This Court in the case of Dr. S.M. Misra v. D.D. Malik 1 has ruled that in the cases where additional accommodation is asked for in proceedings under Delhi Rent Control Act, normally leave to defend should not be refused.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, we deem it fit to grant leave to defend to the appellant and consequently the judgment and order passed by the Rent Controller and as confirmed by the High Court are set aside and the proceedings are remanded to the Rent Controller s Court for deciding the proceedings on merits by treating the appellant to have been granted leave to defend. In view of the pendency of the proceedings since years we direct the Rent Controller to decide the remanded proceedings at the earliest and preferably within four months from the receipt of a copy of this order at his end.

5. The Office of this Court shall send a copy of this order to the concerned Rent Controller for information and necessary action.

6. We make it clear that we make no observations on the merits of the controversy between the parties and it will be decided on its own merits after permitting the parties to lead evidence on which they choose to rely.

7. The civil appeal is allowed accordingly.

8. No costs.

(C.R.) Appeal allowed.

**************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top