Tenants may file relevant additional documents with a rejoinder to leave to defend, provided they pertain to existing pleadings and do not introduce new issues.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--Both the present petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugn the orders dated 5th December, 2019 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) Tis Hazari Courts, in eviction petitions no. E-64/2019 and E-65/2019 whereby the documents sought to be filed by the petitioners/tenant along with his rejoinder to the leave to defend application have been returned back to petitioners/tenant.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petitions are: (i) the respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioners/tenant under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; (ii) summons were issued and were received by the petitioners/tenant; (iii) the petitioners/tenant filed a leave to defend application within the statutory period of 15 days; (iv) the respondent/landlord filed reply to the leave to defend application filed by the petitioners/tenant; and, (v) the petitioners/tenant had filed a rejoinder along with supporting documents.

3. Upon objection taken by the respondent/landlord to the filing of documents along with the rejoinder, the ARC vide the impugned orders, has partially taken on record the rejoinder filed by the petitioners/tenant and the documents filed in support of the rejoinder were returned back to the petitioners/tenant.

4. Notice was issued in the present petition vide order dated 27th January, 2020 pursuant to which reply has been filed by the respondent/landlord.

5. The counsel for the petitioners/tenant has drawn attention of the Court to paragraph VII of the leave to defend application (page 88) of the electronic file, in respect of property no. 7-A/47, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 which is set out below:

"VII) It is also pertinent to mention here that the past conduct of the petitioner evidently points out that the petitioner on false and frivolous grounds get the property vacated to quench his thirst. The petitioner after purchasing property no.7-A/47, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, demolished the said property after evicting the tenants and constructed a hotel and the petitioner namely Sh. Sohan Lal Gupta started running the said hotel under the name and style of "Le-Sancy Hotel". However, the petitioner in order to give color to his illegal designs have sold the property further to the prospective buyers."

The counsel for the petitioners/tenant has drawn attention of the Court to reply filed by the respondent/landlord to the aforesaid paragraph VII of the leave to defend application wherein the averments made therein have been denied and it is stated that the petitioner/tenant should have placed the necessary documents on record to show that the said property belongs to the respondent/landlord. Relevant portion of the reply to the leave to defend application w.r.t. the above paragraph is set out below:

"VII. Para (VII) of the application as stated is absolutely wrong and vehemently denied. It is specifically denied that the petitioner on alleged false and frivolous grounds get vacated the property being No. 7A/47, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhi or demolished the said property after evicting the alleged tenants or constructed a hotel as alleged. It is specifically denied that Shri Sohan Lal Gupta is the petitioner in the present petition as alleged. It is submitted that the petitioner is having no concern with the property being No. 7A/47, W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The respondent must place the necessary documents on the record to show that the said property belongs to the petitioner. No question arose for demolition of the said property at any stage of time. It is submitted that the petitioner company does not have any concern with the said property in any manner whatsoever."

6. Accordingly, the petitioners/tenant had sought to file, along with the rejoinder, four sale deeds in respect of the aforesaid property.

7. Next, the counsel for the petitioners/tenant has drawn attention