Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Hotel Zodiac Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
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 partial
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.
Eviction proceedings must consider the bona fide need of the landlord, with any subsequent events being relevant only if they significantly overshadow the original claim.
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 mandatory nature of the statutory period for filing the leave to defend application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the court's emphasis on the tenant's failure to....
The tenant must provide clear and specific defenses to obtain leave to defend an eviction petition; mere assertions are insufficient without substantial proof.
It is equally well settled that mere assertions made by tenant with respect to landlord's ownership of other buildings and with respect to alternate accommodations are not to be considered sufficient....
A tenant cannot dispute the title of the landlord, and genuine need for premises must be established without alternative accommodation for eviction to be warranted. Adverse possession claims require ....
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
