While asking a tenant to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the subject premises, the Delhi High Court has held that the Delhi Rent Control Act and the purpose thereof will be rendered otiose if a tenant is allowed to shift stands from one forum to another by raising fresh, new or contrary pleas.

The High Court was considering a tenancy matter where the respondent/ landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, before the Additional Rent Controller Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, seeking eviction of the petitioner tenant from the property in question.

The Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee held, “The DRC Act has a specific fixed time frame and a time bound procedure. Further, by introducing/ relying upon the said Sale Deed, at this stage, the tenant cannot be allowed to set up a completely contrary case from that what was before the learned ARC. If a party like the tenant is allowed to shift stands from one forum to another by raising fresh/ new and/ or contrary pleas, then there will be no end to litigation, especially those involving properties under eviction proceedings under the DRC Act. The DRC Act and the purpose thereof, will be rendered otiose.”

Advocate Manjula Gandhi represented the Petitioner, while Advocate S.S. Jain represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

As per the landlord, he had a bona fide requirement of the subject premises for himself and for his grandson to run a business of bangles. He had no other alternative accommodation in the form of residential or commercial property in his name except for the subject premises in question situated on the ground floor, wherein the first and second floor of the property was already being used by him for accommodation of his employees and warehouse purposes.

The tenant filed an application for leave to defend under Section(s) 25(4) & (5) of the DRC Act on the ground that the landlord had no bona fide requirement of the subject premises and an earlier eviction petition filed by the same landlord against the same tenant, for the same subject premises, had already been dismissed. The application for leave to defend of the tenant was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC). The Revision Petition thus came to be filed before the High Court seeking the setting aside of the impugned order passed by the ARC.

Reasoning

Referring to the sale deed, the Bench noted that the same could not be taken into consideration in a revision petition, since it was sought to be filed without seeking any permission and/ or giving any valid reasoning, and beyond the stipulated time period of fifteen days. “Interestingly, though the tenant is alleging fraud as the same Sale Deed was not disclosed before the learned ARC, however, though the present revision petition has been filed way back on 20.05.2019, he has not initiated any steps/ actions against the landlord qua it. Thus, the said contention after a lapse of almost 5½ years is rejected”, it stated.

Referring to the judgments in Smt. Shanti Sharma vs. Smt. Ved Prabha (1987) and Babu Ram Gupta vs. Chander Prakash (2023), the Bench held that since the landlord was able to establish a better title than the tenant, in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, it was sufficient for the ARC to hold that the landlord tenant relationship between the parties stood established.

The Bench further accepted the finding of the ARC in the impugned order with respect to the bona fide requirement for the subject premises by the landlord and also noted that there was no denial of the requirement of the subject premises by the landlord for his grandson, and the same was deemed admitted.

“Regarding selling of properties by the relatives of the landlord, admittedly, since none of the said properties were belonging to the landlord, the same needs no consideration. In any event, mere buying, selling, leasing, licensing by the relatives of the landlord or dealing with other premises in any manner, when the tenant fails to establish any relevance and/ or connection of the same with the pending eviction proceedings, is meaningless for consideration by the learned ARC, with respect to an application for leave to defend”, it added.

The Bench also made it clear that the dismissal of an earlier eviction petition by the landlord against the same tenant with respect to the same premises was inconsequential as the same was dismissed on account of non-appearance.

Thus, finding no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the ARC, the Bench dismissed the Petition, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs. “Accordingly, the tenant is directed to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the subject premises i.e. property bearing No.4332, XIII, Gali Bahuji Bahadurgarh Road, Delhi-110006 to the landlord with immediate effect, particularly, since the benefit of six-months period as per Section 14(7) of the DRC Act has already lapsed”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Juglal Ram Chander v. Surinder Pal Jain (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8999)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Manjula Gandhi, Aman Kumar Yadav, Barnita Sinha Roy

Respondent: Advocates S.S. Jain, Veena Rupana, Sundeep Jain, Nikesh Jain

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Saurabh Banerjee

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.