The bonafide requirement for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act can continue to exist even after the death of the landlord, and the leave to defend granted to the tenants does not operate as res judicata.

CM No.43975/2016

1. For the reasons stated in the application, 105 days’ delay in filing the petition is condoned.

2. Application is disposed of.

RC.Rev.No.560/2016

1. The petitioners, who have been residing as tenant in property No.3808, Ram Nath Patwa Street, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 (privately numbered as 3808/2, Ram Nath Patwa Street, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055), have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 25(B) (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act assailing the order dated 5th March, 2016 whereby the learned Rent Controller, while dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the exparte order, has passed an eviction order in respect of the suit property by invoking the powers vested under Order VIII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure.

2. For purpose of disposal of this Revision Petition, hereinafter the parties would be referred to by their rank in this petition i.e. petitioners/tenants and respondents/landlords.

3. The eviction order has been assailed by the petitioners/tenants inter-alia on the following grounds:-

(i) The provision of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC are not applicable to the Court of Rent Controller for the purpose of filing the written statement.

(ii) The finding of learned Rent Controller granting the leave to defend operates as res judicata.

(iii) The respondent/landlord has not led any evidence to prove bonafide requirement.

(iv) Learned Trial Court could not have invoked the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC for passing the eviction order.

(v) There are two orders of the same date that have been passed on 5th March, 2016, one short order passed at 4.00 pm and the other running into 18 pages. The order running into 18 pages must have been subsequently passed and pre-dated as 05.03.2016.

4. Perusal of the record shows that the eviction petition No.26/2012 was filed by Sh. M.L. Khattar, Advocate under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act impleading Sh. Sohan Lal and Sh. Om Prakash – both sons of Late Sh. Har Lal as respondents. The bonafide requirement pleaded in the petition was that the premises under tenancy of the respondents was required by the petitioner for opening a law firm for himself and his three children, who all are practicing advocates.

5. During the pendency of the eviction petition, Sh. M.L. Khattar expired on 24th September, 2013 and his three children were ordered to be substituted as his legal heirs. Since the bonafide need was for purpose of opening a law firm for his children, who are practicing Advocates, the ground to seek eviction continued to exist.

6. Notice of the eviction petition was served on the petitioners/tenants to file application seeking leave to defend raising the following triable issues:-

(i) The suit property is trust property which could not have been sold.

(ii) The respondents/landlords have sufficient accommodation and they were also having chambers.

(iii) The suit property is a piece of land, hence beyond the purview of Delhi Rent Control Act.

(iv) The application seeking leave to defend was allowed by the learned Rent Controller after noting the following facts:-

(a) In the Civil Suit No.329/2009 filed by M/s Chunna Mal Ram Nath Charitable Trust against Sh. Har Lal – late father of the petitioners/tenants, their father admitted the trust to be owner/landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.

(b) The petitioners/tenants who have stepped into the shoes of their father are estopped from taking a plea contrary to the admission made by their father in Civil Suit No.329/2009.

(c) In the Civil Suit No.329/2009, father of the petitioners/tenants pleaded that the tenanted premises is a well built house which was let out to him, hence the petitioners/tenants cannot claim the same to be a piece of land.

(d) It is admitted case of the petitioners/tenants that there is a common wall between the tenanted premises and residential premises of the landlord and the tenanted premises.

(e) The respondent/landlord ha