Tenant Can't Shift Stands By Raising New Or Contrary Pleas In Eviction Proceedings: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that a tenant cannot be allowed to shift stands from one forum to another by raising new or contrary pleas in eviction proceedings.
“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,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee held.
The Court made the observations while dismissing a plea filed by a tenant challenging an order passed by the Additional Rent Controller rejecting his application for leave to defend. The petition was filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant.
It was the landlord's case that he had a bona fide requirement of the premises for himself and for his grandson to run a business of bangles from there as it was most suitable, reasonable and best suited for their needs.
It was contended that he had no other alternative accommodation in the form of residential or commercial property in his name except for the subject premises.
Upon service of the eviction petition, the tenant filed an application for leave to defend, stating that the landlord had no bona-fide requirement of the subject premises as he simply wanted to sell it.
He submitted that since an earlier eviction petition filed by the same landlord against the same tenant for the same subject premises had already been dismissed, the eviction petition was barred by the principles of constructive res judicata.
Dismissing the plea, Justice Banerjee rejected the tenant's reliance on the Sale Deed, saying that it never existed before the ARC and thus, there was no assertion qua the same.
The Court said that before the High Court, the tenant cannot be allowed to place reliance on the sale deed by “sneaking the same” for the first time and that too without any reason about it.
Further, the judge said that though the tenant was alleging fraud as the Sale Deed was not disclosed before the ARC, no steps or action were not initiated against the landlord qua it.
The Court also rejected the tenant's contention that the landlord was unable to show the level of dependency of his grandson for whom he pleaded a bona fide requirement of the subject premises.
“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,” the Court said.
“In any event, since it was the case of landlord since the beginning that he had no other suitable and reasonable alternative accommodation available with him in Delhi, which, though was denied, but without any substantiation thereof by the tenant, the same is deemed admitted,” it added.
Justice Banerjee directed the tenant to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the subject premises to the landlord with immediate effect, particularly, since the benefit of six-months period as per Section 14(7) of the DRC Act had already lapsed.
Title: JUGLAL RAM CHANDER v. SURINDER PAL JAIN