The landlord's requirement for eviction was upheld as bona fide for her son's new digital publishing business, with the tenant's arguments deemed insufficient.

JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J. (ORAL)--The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted on behalf of the respondent. At joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for disposal.

2. The learned Rent Controller's order dated 08.01.2021 apropos eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the rented premises, is impugned on the ground that it has erred in law.

3. The leave to defend had raised various contentions. Primarily they are as follows: (i) it is not proven that the son was financially dependent upon his mother - the landlady, (ii) there were suitable alternate spaces available to her, in which her son could be accommodated, (iii) the tenanted premises could not be used for the activities proposed by the son under the Municipal Laws, (iv) the property above the tenanted premises was available to the landlady, where the son could be accommodated v) the eviction petition is replete with the errors and concealment, vi) the first floor of the building in which the tenanted premises are located is vacant and it could well have been made available to the petitioner's son, for his purported new business of publication the eviction was sought, vii) that the landlady and her husband are also owners of the newly incorporated company, which is engaged in the business of desktop publishing - the tenant alludes thereby that the son could join the parents in the same business. According to the petitioner, these were triable issues and the application should have been allowed.

4. The tenant says that much after filing of the application for leave to defend and an issue which was not under consideration in the eviction proceedings, it has got to know that the landlady's property bearing No. XI/4347, Gali 4C, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi- 110002, was let out by her to one M/s Asiatic Publishing House; that property was earlier being used as a godown by her husband. The tenant further contends that correct and relevant details of other properties owned by the landlady were not disclosed -- that she has committed a fraud. It is argued that fraud vitiates all judicial acts, be it ecclesiastical or temporal. Reliance is placed on the dicta of the Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath and Others. (1994) 1 SCC 1, which inter alia observed as under:

"Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree -- by the first court or by the highest court -- has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings."

5. The aforesaid position of law, about fraud vitiating everything, is well established. However, what is to be seen is how the impugned order has dealt with each of the issues raised in the leave to defend and whether there is any triable issue was raised by the tenant. This examination would also determine whether the contention apropos fraud has any substance.

6. The eviction order has dealt with each of the issues as under:-

"....

In the present case the petitioner has enumerated all the properties available with the petitioner and her family. The only defence taken by the respondent is that the petitioner has 255 sq yds area available on the first floor of the suit property and petitioner firm Rajshi Educom Pvt Ltd is a firm in which son of petitioner is also director having total autho