JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

CM APPL. 10848/2020

1. This is an application for exemption from filing the duly affirmed affidavit and the requisite court fee. With an undertaking to deposit the court fee within 72 hours from the date of resumption of regular functioning of this Court, exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Undertaking filed by the Appellants is accepted.

2. Application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 10847/2020

Brief Facts

3. The urgent application under consideration, raises various issues relating to suspension of payment of rent by tenants owing to the COVID-19 lockdown crisis and the legal questions surrounding the same. The COVID-19 pandemic has had large-scale implications for human life. Contractual relationships and jural relationships between parties are severely affected due to the lockdown. The question as to whether the lockdown would entitle tenants to claim waiver or exemption from payment of rent or suspension of rent, is bound to arise in thousands of cases across the country. Though there can be no standard rule that can be prescribed to address these cases, some broad parameters can be kept under consideration, in order to determine the manner in which the issues that arise can be resolved.

Background facts

4. The present revision petition was filed by the Appellants/Tenants (hereinafter, “Tenants”) challenging the order dated 18th March, 2017 passed by the ld. Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (hereinafter, “RC”) granting a decree of eviction in respect of Shop No. 30-A, Khan Market, New Delhi (hereinafter, “tenanted premises”). The Tenants run a shoe store called ‘Baluja’ in Khan Market where they sell various types of foot wear. The Landlord i.e., Respondent No.1 (hereinafter, “Landlord”) is a Dentist. The tenanted premises was given on rent for commercial purposes through a lease deed executed on 1st February, 1975 at Rs.300/- per month. In 2008, the Respondents filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, “DRC Act”). Initially, leave to defend was granted by the RC on 31st March, 2012. However, vide the impugned order dated 18th March, 2017, a decree for eviction was passed. The Tenants filed an appeal against the impugned order which was dismissed by the ld. Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter, “RCT”) vide order dated 18th September, 2017 on the ground that the same is not maintainable. Hence, the present petition challenging the eviction order dated 18th March, 2017.

5. The petition was first listed before this Court on 25th September, 2017, on which date, the ld. Single Judge had stayed the order of eviction subject to certain terms. The relevant observations in the said order are set out below:

“9. I have enquired from the counsels, the effect if any of the landlord, after institution of the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, having entered into an agreement to sell and which agreement to sell has admittedly not fructified. It prima facie appears that it is not into the domain of the Rent Control Act to decide even prima facie whether there was any such agreement to sell or not. It has further been enquired, as to what will be the effect, if any, on the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act which has to be decided at least at the first stage summarily, having remained pending at the stage of leave to defend itself for nearly four years and what will be the effect of the landlord for his urgent requirement, having in the interregnum at one stage considered sale of the property.

10. Since there are allegations with respect to several documents and new documents which were obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, have also been filed, it is deemed appropriate to call for the Trial Court record.

11. The counsel for the respondents also states that all the documents have not been placed on record.

12. The Trial Court record be requisitioned forthwith.

13. Issue notice.

14. Notice is acc