An eviction petition for partial eviction cannot be maintained if the tenancy is single and indivisible, and tenants must establish triable issues to be granted leave to defend.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 25-B(8) and Section 14(1)(e) - Revision petition against dismissal of leave to defend application in eviction proceedings - The court established that the tenant must raise triable issues for leave to defend, and that partial eviction petitions are not maintainable where a single indivisible tenancy exists. (Paras 7-10)

(B) Partial Eviction - It was reiterated that a single indivisible tenancy cannot be split, necessitating consideration of the entire tenancy when navigating eviction claims. (Paras 9-10)

(C) Burden of Proof - The landlord must establish a bona fide need along with the absence of alternate accommodations; mere assertions by the tenant are insufficient. (Paras 7-8)

Facts of the case:
The respondent sought eviction under Section 14(1)(e) claiming ownership and residential purpose, while the petitioners challenged this on the grounds of no bona fide need and alternative accommodation.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that triable issues exist warranting the grant of leave to defend.

Issues: Whether partial eviction can be claimed under a single tenancy; whether there exists an alternative accommodation; the standard for leave to defend applications.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that at the leave to defend stage, a tenant only needs to establish a prima facie case with triable issues; thus, the impugned order was set aside for lacking such consideration.

Result: The impugned order dated 05.09.2024 is set aside; leave to defend granted.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek eviction order reversal based on prior relationships. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments about landlord's need and alternate accommodation. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 12)
3. criteria for leave to defend application are established. (Para 7 , 8 , 11)
4. single indivisible tenancy cannot be partially evicted. (Para 9 , 10)
5. order set aside; trial court to assess triable issues. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. By way of present revision petition filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, ‘DRC Act’), the petitioners seek to set aside the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by learned ARC-02, Central, Tis hazari Courts, Delhi in Eviction Petition No. RC/ARC No.436/2021 (hereinafter, ‘impugned judgment’) whereby their application seeking leave to defend came to be dismissed.

Notably, the respondent/landlord had filed the eviction petition under 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act in respect of property being Ward No. VI, municipal number 1149-50 (old. no.802A), Gali Chhatta Ibrahim, Haveli Hisamuddin Haider, Ballimaran, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘subject premises’).

2. Respondent claimed to be owner and landlord of subject premises. He claimed that the subject premises were purchased by his parents from Custodian of Evacuee Property Department by virtue of Conveyance Deed dated 24.11.1962, whereafter, the same was let out to the father of the petitioners for residential purposes.

3. The petitioners, in their application for leave to defend averred that there was no bona fide requirement on part of the respondent to seek eviction from the subject premises as they also had availability of alternate accommodation. They further contended that eviction could not be maintained for partial eviction and claimed trial. In this context, reference was made to previous proceedings between the parties. In other words, it was contended that triable issues existed which would disentitle the respondent from obtaining an eviction order.

4. The impugned order records that there was no challenge to respondent’s ownership or existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT

5. Before this Court, the impugned order is assailed primarily on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the subject premises comprises of ground and first floors, however, the eviction petition was filed only with respect to the ground floor. Reliance is placed on the orders passed in previous proceedings between the parties where the respondent himself had claimed single tenancy for both ground and first floors. Reliance is also placed on decisions to contend that proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) cannot be maintained for partial eviction.[ Shori Lal v. Ram Rakha Mal , reported as 1971 All India Rent Control Journal 424; S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand , reported as 1967 SCC OnLine SC 307; Arjun Singh v. Sarita Rathore , reported as 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4135 and Santosh Jain v. Suresh Chand Bhargava, reported as 1998 SCC OnLine Del 30.]. Secondly, it is contended that the respondent deliberately did not disclose the availability of alternate accommodation being Property No.60, Gali No.2, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi where Mohd. Amir-brother of the respondent, is residing. Though the said fact was urged before ld. ARC, the documents in support could not be produced. Later, the petitioners have obtained a copy of the Sale Deed dated 24.02.2012 concerning the said property. Lastly, it is contended that though the respondents have claimed that the accommodation used by them was in dilapidated condition, no supporting document was placed on record.

6. Per contra, the respondent countered the submissions on the plea of partial eviction by stating that the petitioners’ occupation is confined only to the ground floor and that the first floor is in occupation of Mohd. Yasin and Mohd. Nafees, who separately pay rent to the respondent against proper receipts. Even if judicial proceedings