Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Abid-Ul-Islam - Appellant
Versus
Inder Sain Dua – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9444 of 2016
Decided On : 07-04-2022
(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Sections 14(1)(e) and 25B(8), Proviso – Eviction of tenant – In a case where a landlord makes application seeking possession of tenanted premises for his bona fide requirement, Rent Controller may dispense with protection prescribed under the Act and then grant order of eviction – Requirement is existence of bona fide need, when there is no other “reasonably suitable accommodation” – There has to be satisfaction on two grounds, namely, (i) requirement being bona fide and (ii) non-availability of a reasonably suitable residential accommodation – Such reasonableness along with suitability is to be seen from perspective of landlord and not tenant – When Rent Controller comes to conclusion that there exists a bona fide need coupled with satisfaction that there is no reasonably suitable residential accommodation, twin conditions mandated under Section 14(1)(e) stand satisfied. (Para 12)
(B) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Sections 14(1)(e), 19 and 25B(5) – Eviction petition – Leave to defend – For availing leave to defend as envisaged under Section 25B(5), mere assertion per se would not suffice as Section 14(1)(e) creates a presumption subject to satisfaction of Rent Controller qua bona fide need in favour of landlord which is rebuttable with some material of substance to the extent of raising a triable issue – Satisfaction of Rent Controller in deciding on an application seeking leave to defend is subjective – Degree of probability is one of preponderance forming subjective satisfaction of Rent Controller – Quality of adjudication is between a mere moonshine and adequate material and evidence meant for rejection of a normal application for eviction – Before a presumption is drawn, landlord is duty bound to place prima facie material supported by adequate averments – It is only thereafter, presumption gets attracted and onus shifts on tenant – Object of Section 14(1)(e) vis-à-vis Section 25B has to be seen in light of yet another provision contained under Section 19 – Section 19 gives right to dispossessed tenant for repossession if there is a non-compliance on part of landlord albeit after eviction, to put the premises to use for intended purpose. Such a right is available only to a tenant who stood dispossessed on application filed by landlord invoking Section 14(1)(e) being allowed. (Paras 15 and 16)
(C) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Section 25B(8), Proviso – Revisional Power – Scope and ambit – Reversal of eviction order by High Court in revision – Proviso to Section 25B(8) gives High Court exclusive power of revision against an order of Rent Controller, being in nature of superintendence over an inferior court on decision making process, inclusive of procedural compliance – Scope of interference by High Court is very restrictive and except in cases where there is an error apparent on face of record, High Court should not venture to disturb such a decision – There is no need for holding roving inquiry in such matters which would otherwise amount to converting power of superintendence into that of a regular first appeal, an act, totally forbidden by Legislature – In present case, having found that defence set up by respondent is only a moonshine, application filed seeking leave to defend was rejected – Mere existence of other properties which are, in fact, denied by appellant would not enure to benefit of respondent in absence of any pleadings and supporting material before Rent Controller to the effect that they are reasonably suitable for accommodation – Order of High Court set aside and order passed by Rent Controller restored. (Paras 20, 22, 26 and 30)
Facts of the case:
Focus in this appeal is on the exercise of the revisional power by the High Court of Delhi in its invocation of proviso to Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Findings of Court:
High Court, while ignoring conduct of the respondent, as noted by Rent Controller, proceeded to allow the revision by treating it like an appeal. It did not even reverse findings of Rent Controller, but proceeded to hold that the denials of the appellant in his reply to application seeking leave to defend are vague, qua the plea of alternative accommodation, notwithstanding the rejection of the contention of respondent that he cannot question the title. This approach cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M. M. Sundresh, J.
1. Focus in this appeal is on the exercise of the revisional power by the High Court of Delhi in its invocation of proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short “the Act”).
2. Heard Mr. Amit Andley, learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, party-in-person. We have perused all the documents filed along with written arguments.
BRIEF FACTS :
3. Shri Haji Badrul Islam (since deceased) was the original owner of the two shops leased out to the respondent orally way back in the year 1970. The lease continued for decades. After the demise of the original landlord, his son Shri Sajid-Ul-Islam became the owner both by inheritance and by virtue of an award dated 11.03.1980. He too expired on 21.11.1986 and the appellant, who claims through the award and inheritance by operation of law, filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act in the year 2014.
4. The respondent filed an application seeking leave to defend, inter alia, raising three primary contentions, namely, (i) the appellant is not having title over the property; (ii) the property actually belongs to the Government of India under the Enemy Property Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “Enemy Property Act”) and (iii) there are alternative accommodations by way of other properties available for carrying out the business of the appellant as such the need of the appellant is not bona fide.
5. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application holding that the title of the appellant cannot be questioned by the respondent, the averments regarding the suitability of alternative accommodation are vague and the embargo under the Enemy Property Act would not be made applicable to the properties in question. Incidentally, the bona fide need of the appellant has also been discussed by the learned Rent Controller.
6. The respondent, being dissatisfied with the said decision of the learned Rent Controller, approached the High Court of Delhi invoking the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Act. Despite holding that the respondent cannot question the title of the appellant, having filed a suit acknowledging the said factum, the revision was allowed on the premise that there are triable issues as the denial of the appellant on the defence of the appellant qua the issue of alternative accommodation is vague.
7. Assailing the aforesaid decision rendered by the High Court, the present appeal is before us.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT:
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the jurisdiction available to the High Court being limited and restrictive, the decision made without a specific finding on the reasoning of the learned Rent Controller would amount to exercising a jurisdiction not vested. The respondent has not made out a case even on facts. It is not for the respondent being a tenant to insist upon a particular property, especially when a clear statement has been made on possession. The appellant has specifically denied ownership of any alternate properties mentioned by the respondent in his application seeking leave to defend.
9. On the additional documents filed by the respondent, it is submitted that the subsequent proceeding initiated under the Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Amended Act”) was one without jurisdiction, especially when the earlier one was closed after conducting a preliminary inquiry. To substantiate the same, reliance is made on the report dated 04.11.2015. The learned counsel has also stated that the proceedings challenging the subsequent notices are pending before the High Court of Delhi wherein an order of “no coercive steps should be taken” has been passed. In the aforesaid proceedings the application filed by the respondent to implead himself was rejected for want of bona fides, which stood confirmed by this Court.
10. To buttress the submissions, learned counsel has relied on the following judgments rendered b
(1) Eviction of tenant – When Rent Controller comes to conclusion that there exists a bona fide need coupled with satisfaction that there is no reasonably suitable residential accommodation, twin con....
The landlord's bona fide requirement should not be doubted, and the tenant must make out a case showing that the landlord would be disentitled from obtaining an eviction order.
In summary eviction proceedings, the landlord need only establish a title better than that claimed by the tenant, and the court must balance the rights of the landlord and the tenant.
The court highlighted the importance of timely filing of application for leave to contest, valid reasons for extension, and the need for a substantial case for consideration of the application.
Landlords must substantiate bona fide need for occupancy. Statutory provisions mandate proving availability of alternatives for tenants, with courts constrained in reconsidering factual findings.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
