2002 Supreme(Del) 749

High Court Of Delhi
M.L.GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
KRIPAL SINGH - Respondent
Decided On : 05/20/2002

Headnote:a) It was held under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code,1908, that replication filed with leave of Court is a part of the pleadings of plaintiff and is supplement to the plaint – Further, if in case all together new facts had been pleaded in replication, then respondent have every right for grant of amendement of written statement to rebut those pleadings –Since, in the instant case, the petitioner never sought leave of Court to amend the written statement or to file additional statement in rebuttal to the new pleadings in replication, the petitioner should had been deemed to waive his right b) The case dealt with the meaning of the expression landlord under Sections 2(e) and 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – It further questioned whether a landlord has locus standii to file eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement – It was ruled that the definition would also cover a landlord who is also a owner of the property – Further, the definition also covers in its ambit an owner, being a superior title

       holder, even where the premises was let out by a third person –Further, as owner and landlord of premises, he is entitled to seek eviction of tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act c) It was held under Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, that where there is change of user, the burden shifts from landlord to the tenant to prove the consent of landlord to change of user – It was held that, since in the instant case the tenant failed to discharge his burden, the premises could not be held to be let out for the residential cum commercial purpose d) The case questioned whether the respondent 2 was able to make out a bonafide case for getting his premises evicted as per Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – In the instant case, R-2 was landlord while R1 was his father and petitioner was a tenant - R1 had independent hose, a portion of which he had given on lease to the employer of his only son – The company paid rent to R1 – It was found that both R1 and R2 were not a joint family property – Further R2 had no right in house belonging to his father and he intended to live separately in his own house – It was observed that R1 wanted his premises to be vacated for fetching good amount of rent – It was held that R2 required suit premises bonafidely e) The case dealt with the interpretation of the term ‘does not have any reasonable/suitable residential accommodation’ under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 –It was held that the provision implies that the landlord must have a legal right to reside in the said accommodation and the residential accommodation be available for occupation and lastly the same must be suitable for the landlord f) It was adjudged under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, that in absence of any documentary evidence like lease deed, the letting purpose has to be made out from physical area of premises, actual user and surrounding circumstances g) It was adjudged that the incidental use of premises by tenant for his business, professional, non-residential, or any commercial purpose would not change the nature from residential to commercial purpose h) It was adjudged that the mere production of words used in statute is not enough for the purpose of pleading for petition under Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Further, the petitioner must disclose a cause of action based on material facts since in case of leave being refused, the statements made by the landlord in application are to be deemed to admitted by the tenant i) It was adjudged as per Sections 25-B(5) and 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958, that in order to obtain the leave to defend the eviction petition, the tenant is bound to give in detail, the facts which could show that the landlord was not entitled to get an order of eviction straight with any trail – Further, if in case, the landlord had concealed material facts, which he was required to disclose in the eviction petition, he would do so at his own peril

       j) The case discussed the power of High Court in revision as per Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 – It was adjudged that, the power under Section 25-B(8) was restricted – Court under the Section has no power to interfere by the way of re-appreciation of factual controversies unless the order of tribunal was perverse or had jurisdictional errors – It can only scrutinise the records for confirming whether the rent controller had committed legality in passing orders under Section 25-B