Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Bhaskar Refractories And Stoneware Pipes Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ishwar Industries Ltd. – Respondent
RC.REV. 257 of 2022
Decided On : 02-06-2023
Eviction - Delhi Rent Control Act - Section 14(1)(e) - 25B(2) - 25B(4) - 25B(8)
Fact of the Case:
The eviction petition was filed by the Respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking eviction of the Petitioner from tenanted premises. The Petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing the leave to defend application, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. The Petitioner challenged the eviction order and the review application dismissal, but both were upheld by the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Rent Controller does not have the power to condone any delay in filing a leave to defend application, as established by the Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh. The Court also found that the Petitioner failed to raise any triable issues and that the eviction petition was maintainable by the Respondent as a corporate entity for its bona fide need.
Issues: The issues included the delay in filing the leave to defend application, the maintainability of the eviction petition by a corporate entity, and the denial of the landlord-tenant relationship by the Petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Rent Controller cannot condone any delay in filing a leave to defend application, as per the Supreme Court's decision. It also established that a corporate entity can maintain an eviction petition for its bona fide need. The Court found that the Petitioner failed to raise any triable issues and that the denial of the landlord-tenant relationship was baseless.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the eviction order and dismissed the revision petition, directing the Petitioner to pay costs to the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
1. This petition has been filed assailing the eviction order dated 01.12.2021, passed by the Rent Controller, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (`Trial Court') in RC ARC No. 50 of 2019, as well as the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the review application filed against the said eviction order dated 01.12.2021.
2. The Trial Court while allowing the eviction petition vide order dated 01.12.2021, dismissed the application of the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the leave to defend application as the same had been filed after delay of thirteen (13) days.
3. The eviction petition was instituted by the Respondent herein under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (`DRC Act'), seeking eviction of the Petitioner herein from tenanted premises i.e., ground floor, Block No. 6 in Khasra No. 264, Tribhuvan Complex, Ishwar Nagar, New Delhi - 65 (`tenanted premises'), ad-measuring 5000 sq. ft. approximately.
4. The notice of the eviction petition was issued to the Petitioner herein vide order dated 02.08.2019, under Section 25B(2) of the DRC Act, calling upon him to obtain the leave to contest within a period of fifteen (15) days of service. It is a matter of record that the notice was served on the Petitioner on 20.08.2019. The Petitioner was thus, obliged to file the application seeking leave to defend within fifteen (15) days i.e., on or before 04.09.2019. However, the same was admittedly filed by the Petitioner herein on 17.09.2019 i.e., after a delay of about thirteen (13) days.
5. The Petitioner, tenant, filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application seeking leave to defend, explaining that the non-filing was on account of the mistake of the clerk of the counsel. The Trial Court relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs., (2010)2 SCC 15 and Om Prakash v. Ashwani Kumar Bassi, (2010)9 SCC 183, held that the Rent Controller does not have the power to condone even a single day's delay and accordingly, dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay in filling leave to defend application vide order dated 01.12.2021. The Trial Court thereafter proceeded to examine the averments made in the eviction petition and after satisfying itself that all the ingredient of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, are satisfied, it allowed the eviction petition filed on behalf of the Respondent, vide order dated 01.12.2021.
6. The Petitioner herein had originally approached this Court by way of revision petition bearing RC. REV. No. 178/2021, challenging the eviction order dated 01.12.2021, however, the same was withdrawn by the Petitioner on 03.06.2022 with liberty to approach the Trial Court seeking a review of order dated 01.12.2021. As noted hereinbefore, the review application filed by the Petitioner herein stands dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2022.
7. The Trial Court after perusing the averments made in the review application held that the grounds on which the review was sought were not even raised in the application seeking leave to defend and had been raised for the first time in the review petition. The Trial Court observed that the grounds raised were beyond the purview of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. The Trial Court opined that it has no inherent power to condone the delay and affirmed the view taken on 01.12.2021 while dismissing the review petition.
8. Brief facts as stated by the Respondent in its eviction petition are as under:
8.1. It is stated that the property wherein the tenanted premises are situated was sold to the Respondent by Pandit Amarnath Bhaskar, vide an oral sale in the month of November, 1943. It is stated upon death of Pandit Amarnath Bhaskar, his surviving legal heirs i.e., his wife and four sons relinquished their rights, title and claim in the property vide a Registered Deed of Release dated 03.07.1
The Rent Controller cannot condone any delay in filing a leave to defend application, and a corporate entity can maintain an eviction petition for its bona fide need.
The landlord-tenant relationship, the landlord's bona fide need, and the rent amount were key legal principles established in the judgment.
The court upheld the eviction order, confirming the landlords' bona fide need for the tenanted premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, despite the tenants' claims of independent tenancy.
The court reinforced that tenants must demonstrate bona fide issues to contest eviction based on landlord's genuine need, while the eviction process remains expedited under the summary provisions of ....
The legal point established is that the landlord retains ownership rights until physical possession is taken over by the government, and the burden is on the tenant to show how they came into possess....
The Court emphasized the presumption of bona fide need in favor of the Landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the restrictive scope of interference by the High Court in re....
The court emphasized the need for the summons to be duly served with a legible copy of the paper book and applied the dual test of reasons beyond control for the delay and the substantial case for co....
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
