Proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act preclude consideration of subsequent events in eviction matters; rights are typically frozen at the time of application, and tenants cannot extend litigation by introducing post-filing developments.

JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J.

CM APPL. 1452/2024 (subsequent events) & CM APPL. 50183/2019 (subsequent events) in RC.REV. 160/2018

CM APPL. 1450/2024 (subsequent events) & CM APPL. 50184/2019 (subsequent events) in RC.REV. 180/2018

CM APPL. 1453/2024 (subsequent events) & CM APPL. 50113/2018 (additional documents) in RC.REV. 569/2018

CM APPL. 1455/2024 (subsequent events) & CM APPL. 50190/2018 (additional documents) in RC.REV. 570/2018

CM APPL. 1454/2024 (subsequent events) & CM APPL. 50195/2018 (subsequent events) in RC.REV. 571/2018

CM APPL. 1451/2024 (subsequent events) & CM APPL.50198/2018 (subsequent events) in RC.REV. 572/2018

1. These applications filed on behalf of the petitioners (tenants) in these petitions under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act are based on similar factual and legal matrix, so taken up together. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. Succinctly stated, circumstances relevant for adjudication of these applications are as follows.

2.1 The main revision petitions have been filed by the tenants to assail orders of the Additional Rent Controller, whereby leave to contest the eviction proceedings under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act was declined and consequently, eviction orders were passed. In all these cases, after preliminary hearing, operation of the impugned eviction orders was stayed by the predecessor bench.

2.2 During pendency of the revision petitions, the petitioners/tenants filed these 12 applications, seeking permission to place on record additional submissions/documents in order to disclose events that allegedly occurred subsequent to passing of the eviction orders impugned in these revision petitions. The subsequent events alleged by the applicants are that subsequent to passing of the impugned eviction orders, the respondents/landlords (non applicants herein) acquired vacant possession of few shops of the larger premises (of which the subject premises are part), and they inducted new tenants therein, which has extinguished their claim of bona fide requirement due to accrual of availability of reasonably suitable alternate accommodation.

2.3 The eviction petitions, from which the present revision proceedings have arisen, pertained to the ground floor shops no. 17, 18, 19, 40, 41 and 45 (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises") in the building bearing no. 10240-10244 & 10248, Vijay Chambers, Library Road, Azad Market, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the larger premises"). In the said eviction petitions, the present non-applicants pleaded that they bona fide required the subject premises because on account of paucity of accommodation in their possession in the larger premises, their goods had to be kept outside their shops and in corridors, which goods are required to be stored by classifying/segregating them according to quality, rate, weight, material composition and dimension etc., and approximately 4000 bundles of water proof heavy canvass are required to be stored in shops near the road approachable by truck so that the same could be loaded/unloaded easily, and for that purpose the subject premises are most suitable.

2.4 As mentioned above, the applications filed by the tenants (applicants herein) seeking leave to contest the eviction proceedings were dismissed and in the present revision petitions challenging those eviction orders, the applications under consideration have been filed.

2.5 One set of these applications is with regard to acquisition of shops no. 44, 48 and 49 while the other set is with regard to acquisit