[Delhi Rent Control Act] Leave To Defend Cannot Be Granted On Mere Asking Of Tenant: Delhi High Court Reiterates

In doing so, the High Court reiterated the observations made by the Supreme Court in Abid-ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353), where the it was held that a leave to defend under Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, cannot be granted on mere asking and that the tenant has to put in some material of substance to the extent of raising a triable issue.

The petitioner-landlord, aged 80 years, filed an eviction petition seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the subject premises.

In his eviction petition, the petitioner stated that the subject premises was required for bona fide use. It was also stated that he was suffering from various ailments including paralysis, parkinsons, fibrosis of the lungs and hypertension. Further, that his wife, aged 76 years, also suffered from critical medical conditions. The petitioner submitted that his and his wife needs assistance of round the clock medical attendants.

Subsequently, the respondent filed an application seeking leave to defend before the Trial Court.

The Trial Court allowed the application and found the availability of suitable alternate accommodation was a triable issue. It also found that since the details of the medical attendants of the petitioner was not disclosed, it was a triable issue as well.

The petitioner thus challenged the Trial Court's order granting leave to defend to the respondent-tenant.

Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju was of the view that whether or not the petitioner and his wife require clock attendance could not be a triable issue.

Pursuing the medical records, the Court noted that it reflected the various illness from which the petitioner and his wife suffered from.

It said that the petitioner and his wife require complete care and round the clock attendance. It added that the medical staff would be needed in the premises and that there was no reason to doubt the bona fides of the petitioner.

“The medical records and photographs which have been placed on record by the Petitioner undoubtedly reflects the various illness from which the Petitioner and his wife suffers which include paralysis, parkinsons, fibrosis of the lungs, hypertension, etc. Thus, whether or not they require round the clock attendance cannot possible be a triable issue.”

Further, the Court noted that the site plan and records submitted by the petitioner showed that there was no alternate accommodation available. It noted that the son and daughter of the petitioner, who were staying in the subject premises also had no other premises in Delhi.

It observed that it is not possible to shift the petitioner and his wife elsewhere as all medical facilities available to them were near the subject premises

“A perusal of the site plan clearly shows the number of bed rooms/habitable rooms available in the entire building. The Eviction Petition also sets out in detail the medical condition of the Petitioner, his wife and other family members. The entire space available is shown as being utilised. Thus, it is clearly not a case of requirement of additional accommodation.”

The Court further referred to Prativa Devi (Smt) v. T.V. Krishnan (1996), where the Apex Court observed that a tenant cannot dictate the terms of use of a property to a landlord and that the landlord is the best judge of his requirements. It was observed that it is not for the Courts to dictate in what manner and how a landlord should live.

The Court further noted that in Abid-ul-Islam case, the Supreme Court observed that in revisionary jurisdiction, the scope of examination is limited and the court must confine itself to the limited sphere that the order of the Rent Controller is in accordance with law.

The Court thus set-aside the Trial Court's order. It granted the respondent 6 months time to vacate the subject premises.

Case title: Satya Pal Pathak Through GPA Vijay Kumar Kaushik

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1366