The reopening of evidence is discretionary and may be permitted if essential for a just decision.

J U D G M E N T

1. The issue in dispute in the present petition pertains to dismissal of the appeal filed under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act , 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act”).

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they filed an Eviction petition bearing RC ARC 14/2019 under Section 14 (1) (b) & 14 (1) (c) DRC Act seeking eviction of the respondents on the ground of sub-letting and misuse of the premises bearing no. 16 A Sunder Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “subject property”). The petition is contested by the respondents. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner no. 1 died on 29.01.2010 and petitioner no. 2 was substituted as the legal heir of the former on 11.05.2011. Subsequent to framing of issues by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners’ evidence commenced.

3. Only one witness i.e. PW-1 was examined on behalf of the petitioners and the said witness was cross examined by the respondents. Vide order dated 03.09.2019, the learned Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as “RC”) closed the evidence of the petitioners and listed the matter for respondents’ evidence. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application under Order XVI Rule 1(3) and Order VII Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) for reopening of evidence of the petitioners along with the documents evidencing that the respondents had sub-let the subject property and sought permission to examine the additional witnesses. The respondents filed their reply and opposed it. Learned RC dismissed the same vide order dated 15.01.2020.

4. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the learned RC, preferred an appeal bearing no. 3/2020 against the said order under Section 38 DRC Act on 07.02.2020 before learned District and Sessions Judge, South District, Saket Courts (hereinafter referred to as “Appellate Court”). After hearing the arguments from both the sides, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners vide judgment dated 10.09.2020.

5. The petitioners filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the judgment dated 10.09.2020.

Submissions by the Petitioners:

6. Mr. Ruchir Ranjan Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is serious infirmity with the orders passed by both the courts as the courts have erroneously held that the evidence sought to be produced was beyond pleadings in the Eviction Petition. The learned counsel submitted that both the Courts did not acknowledge the fact that the petitioners in their Eviction Petition in paragraphs 18(A)(i), (ii) and (iii) have clearly mentioned name of the respondents i.e. respondent nos. 1(a) and (b) who have sub-let the suit premises to respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 without the permission of the petitioners and in addition, it has been mentioned that “any another not known to the Petitioners” thereby indicating about any other subletting which is not known to the petitioners, whereas both the Courts erred in observing that premises in question has been sublet to JNA law firm is not specifically mentioned in the petition. It is a settled position of law that once the eviction is sought on the ground of sub-letting, the tenant clearly understands that it implies all the instances of sub-letting and the pleadings ought to be construed liberally.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that therefore, in such instances, the landlord is not required in law to make the sub-tenant a party. Notably, even the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959 under FORM-A under clause 3(b) require the landlord to f