Holding

A tenant is entitled to leave to defend an eviction petition if his affidavit prima facie shows that the landlord would be disentitled, and the Rent Controller must not adjudicate the merits at the leave‑to‑defend stage.

Summary

The landlord, who had settled abroad, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for the premises as his residence. The tenant applied for leave to defend the petition, but the Additional Rent Controller refused, treating the application as a merits hearing and ordering eviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the Controller had correctly applied Section 258(5), which requires only a prima facie showing that the landlord would be disentitled from eviction. The Court held that the Controller exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding the merits and that the tenant’s affidavit raised a triable issue, obligating the Controller to grant leave. Consequently, the order refusing leave was set aside, leave to defend was granted, and the matter was remanded for proper disposal. The decision reaffirmed that the burden lies on the landlord to prove a bona‑fide requirement and that a tenant cannot be summarily evicted without an opportunity to contest.

Issues considered

The scope and application of Section 258(5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in granting leave to defend an eviction petition.
Whether the Additional Rent Controller erred by evaluating the merits of the eviction petition at the stage of deciding leave to defend.
Whether the tenant's affidavit disclosed a triable issue sufficient to warrant leave to defend.

Legislation cited

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 14(1)(e), s. 258(4), s. 258(5), s. 258(6), s. 258(7), s. 258(8), s. 25B(4)

Subjects

rent controlevictionbona fide requirementleave to defendsummary trialSection 258landlord‑tenant dispute

Judgment

INDERJEET KAUR A
v.
NIRPAL SINGH

DECEMBER 15, 2000

[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] B

Rent Central and Eviction :

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Sections 14(/){e), 25B(4) & (5)-
Eviction Petition-Bona fide Requirement-Leave to defend-Grant of-Held, C
at a stage when the tenant seeks leave to defend, it is enough if he prima
facie makes out a case by disclosing such facts as would disentitle the
landlord from obtaining an order of el'iction-lt would not be a right approach
to say that unless the tenant at that stage itself establishes a strong case as
would non-suit the landlord, leave to defend should not be granted D
Landlord settled abroad with his family seeking eviction of tenant
stating that he had come back and permanently settled in India-Application
filed by tenant seeking leave to contest, rejected-Tenability of-Held, the
Additional Rent Controller has acted with material irregularity and committed
a manifest error in accepting the case of the landlord when the facts were E
seriously disputed and the correctness or otherwise of the documents required
to be examined-Ai:ijudication of the case on merits at the stage of granting
leave to defend is beyond the jurisdiction and statutory duty cast on the
Additional Rent Controller.

Respondent-landlord who had settled abroad with his family, filed an F
eviction petition under Section l4(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking
eviction of the appellant-tenant from the suit premises. The eviction was sought
on the ground of his bonafide requirement for his occupation as a residence
for himself and his family members stating that he had come back and
permanently settled in India. The appellant-tenant filed an application seeking G
leave to contest the application for eviction which was rejected by the
Additional Rent Controller and an order of eviction was passed against him
in respect of the suit premises. Civil Revision filed in the High Court was
also dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the facts stated. and H
707
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A substantial grounds raised in the application seeking leave to defend clearly
disclosed that the respondent would be disentitled from obtaining an order
for the recovery of possession of the premises on the grounds specified in
Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act; that the approach of the
Additional Rent Controller in dealing with the application made for grant of
leave to defend was not proper having regard to the scope of Section 258(4)
B & (5) of the Act; that several triable issues did arise for consideration in the
light of the facts stated and rival contentions raised; that the disputed facts
could not be decided at the time of considering the application for grant of
leave.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
c
HELD: I. The Additional Rent Controller has considered merits of the
respective contentions at the stage of granting leave to defend under section
258 (5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act without keeping in mind the scope of
the provisions and statutory duty cast on him. He exceeded the jurisdiction
D vested in him in refusing leave to defend. It appears that he did not focus his
attention to the scope and content of Section 258(5). Having regard to the
facts stated and grounds raised in the affidavit filed by the appellant seeking
leave to defend, it is not possible to take a view that no triable issue arose for
consideration. The facts stated in the affidavit of the appellant in support of
his application seeking leave to defend prima facie do disclose that the
E respondent would be disentitled to obtain an order for the recovery of
possession of the premises from the appellant particularly when other cases
are pending between the parties and defence does not appear to be frivolous
or untenable on the face of it. The Additional Rent Controller has acted with
material irregularity and committed a manifest error in accepting the case
F of the respondent-landlord when the facts were seriously disputed and the
correctness or otherwise of the documents required to be examined.
[716-D, E, F, G)

Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nanci, (1983) 1 SCC 301, relied on.

G Precision Steel & Engineering Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva
Tayal, (198213 SCC 270, referred to.

2. The ground under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section
14 enables a landlord to recover possession of the tenanted premises on the
ground of his bonafide requirement. This being an enabling provision,
H essentially the burden is on the landlord to establish his case affirmatively.
INDERJEET KAUR v. NIRPAL SINGH [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.] 709

At a stage when the tenant seeks leave to defend, it is enough if he prima A
f acie makes out a case by disclosing such facts as could disentitle the landlord
from obtaining an order of eviction. It would not be a right approach to say
that unless the tenant at that stage itself establishes a strong case as would
non-suit the landlord, leave to defend should not be granted when it is not the
requirement of Section 258(5). In short and substance wholly frivolous and B
totally untenable defence may not entitle a tenant to leave to defend but when
a triable issue is raised a duty is placed on the Rent Controller by the statute
itself to grant leave. At the stage of granting leave the real test should be
whether facts disclosed in the affidavit filed seeking leave to defend prima
facie show that the landlord would be disentitled from obtaining an order of
eviction and not whether at the end defence may fail. A landlord, who requires C
bonafide a premises for his residence and occupation should not suffer for
long waiting for eviction of a tenant. At the same time, a tenant cannot be
thrown cut from a premises summarily even though prima facie he is able to
say that the claim of the landlord is not bona fide or untenable and as such
not entit!oo to obtain an order of eviction. Hence the approach has to be cautious D
and j11dicious in granting or refusing leave to defend to a tenant to contest an
eviction petition within the broad scheme of Chapter IIIA and in particular
having regard to the clear terms and language of Section 258(5).
(713-C, D; 714-B, C, DI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7385 of 2000. E
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.I999 of High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi in Civil Revision No. 704 of 1999.

Sudhir Kumar Gupta, R.K. Gupta, Rajwinder Singh, S. Chakraborty and
Rani Chhabra for the appearing parties. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J. Leave granted.

The controversy that needs to be addressed and resolved in this appeal G
relates to grant of leave to the tenant under Section 258(5) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 (for short the 'Act') to contest the application filed for
eviction under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of
the Act.

In brief, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are: H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A The respondent herein (the landlord) filed a petition under clause (e) of
the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act seeking eviction of the appellant (the
tenant) from the premises on the ground of his bona fide requirement for his
occupation as a residence for himself and other members of the family
dependent on him stating that he has come back and permanently settled in
India; his sons, daughters and other relations who are settled in United
B Kingdom also visit him but he is unable to provide them accommodation; his
son Shri Rajpal Singh has decided to return to India to settle and was winding
up his affairs at U.K. etc.

The appellant after receiving the summons under Section 258(4) of the
C Act filed an application supported by an affidavit seeking leave to contest
the application for eviction, narrating facts in details and raising grounds in
support of his prayer for grant of leave to defend. Besides other contentions,
he raised the following:-
(I) The respondent, his son and daughter are British c1t1zens
possessing British passports and are permanently settled in United -~
D
Kingdom. His son is a Computer Engineer and is well-settled
there and the question of winding up of his affairs does not arise.
His daughter is already married in U.K. and living happily. Even
the respondent has no intention to settle in India as he is
comfortably settled in U.K. The eviction petition has been filed
E to increase the rent and I or to sell the premises.
(2) The premises were taken on rent for residential-cum-commercial
purpose and, therefore, the ground under clause (e) of the proviso
to Section 14(1) of the Act is not available.
(3) The eviction petition filed is bad for non-joinder of necessary
F parties.
(4) The assertion made in the eviction petition is that the appellant
is the tenant of two rooms and for other two rooms a complaint
is pending before the Magistrate for trespass. Hence the Addi.
Rent Controller was wrong in passing eviction order in respect
G of four rooms.
(5) A suit filed by the appellant against the respondent to protect
his possession in the civil court is pending and in which order
of temporary injunction granted against the respondent is
operative.
H The Addi. Rent Controller, Delhi, by an elaborate order dated 5.3.1999
INDERJEET KACR v. NIRPAL SINGH [SHIYARAJ Y. PATIL, J.] 711
rejected the application filed by the appellant seeking leave to defend and A
passed an order of eviction against him in respect of the suit premises. The
appellant took up the matter in civil revision in the High Court of Delhi and
the same was dismissed, affirming the order of the Addi. Rent Controller.
Hence this appeal is brought before us by special leave.

The learned counsel for the appellant urged that (I) the facts stated B

- and substantial grounds raised in the affidavit filed under Section 258(4) of
the Act seeking leave to defend clearly disclosed that the respondent would
be disentitled from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the
premises on the grounds specified in clause (e) of the proviso to Section
14(1) of the Act; (2) the approach of the Addi. Rent Controller in dealing with
the application made for grant of leave to defend was not proper having
c
regard to the scope of Section 258(4) & (5) of the Act; he refused to grant
leave to defend after discussing the contentions and documents as if he was
deciding the main eviction petition after trial; (3) several triable issues did
arise for consideration in the light of the facts stated and rival contentions
raised; (4) the disputed facts could not be decided at the time of considering D
the application for grant of leave; (5) the High Court was also not right in
simply affirming the order of the Addi. Rent Controller when the said order
suffered with material irregularity and jurisdictional error.

The learned counsel for the respondent made submissions supporting
the impugned orders. E
The relevant and material provisions of the Act for the present purpose,
in order to appreciate the rival contentions, are extracted below:-

"14(l)(e) That the premises let for residential purposes are required
bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself F
or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner
thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises life held and
that the landlord or such person has no other reasonable residential
accommodation;

Explanation-For the purposes of this clause, "premises let for G
residential purposes," include any premises which having been let for
use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used
incidentally for commercial or other purposes;

258( I) Every application by a landlord for the recovery of possession
of any premises on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso H
712 SUPREME COlJRT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A to sub-section ( 1) of section 14, or under section l 4A [or under
section 148 or under section 14C or under section 140], shall be dealt
with in accordance with the procedure specified in this section.

258(2) ....................................................... .
258(3) ....................................................... .
B 25B(4)The tenant on whom the summons is duly served (whether in
the ordinary way or by registered post) in the form specified in
..,..
the Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction from
the premises unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on
which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains
c leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided; and in default
of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining
such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the application
for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the
applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground
aforesaid.
D
258(5) The Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the
application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts
as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the
recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified
in clause ( e) of the proviso to sub-section (I) of Section 14, or
E under Section 14A."

Chapter IIIA deals with summary trial of certain applications expressly
stating that every application by a landlord for recovery of possession on the
ground specified in clause ( e) of the proviso to sub- section (I) of Section
14 of the Act, or under Section 14A or 148 or 14C or 140 shall be dealt with
F in accordance with the special provisions prescribed in Section 258 of the
Act. As per the broad scheme of this Chapter a tenant is precluded from
contesting an application filed for eviction on the grounds mentioned in the
aforementioned provisions unless he obtains leave from the Controller to
contest the eviction petition. In default of obtaining leave to defend or leave
G is refused to him an order of eviction follows. It appears recourse to summary
trial is adopted having due regard to nature of the grounds on which the
eviction is sought with a view to avoid delay so that the landlord should not
be deprived or denied of his right to immediate possession of premises for
his bona fide use.

H At the same time, it is well settled and accepted position in law that no
INDERJEET KAUR v. NI RP AL SINGH [SHIY ARAJ Y. PATIL, J.] 713

one shall be subjected to suffer a civil consequence like eviction from a A
premises resulting in hardship to him without providing adequate and effective
opportunity to disprove the case against him and establish his case as
pleaded.

As is evident from Section 258(4)&(5) of the Act, burden placed on a
tenant is light and limited in that if the affidavit filed by him discloses such B
facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery
of the possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause (e) of
the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act, with which we are concerned in th is
case, are good enough to grant leave to defend.

A landlord, who bona fidely requires a premises for his residence and
c
occupation should not suffer for long waiting for eviction of a tenant. At the
same time, a tenant cannot be thrown out from a premises summan:y even
though prima facie he is able to say that the claim of the landlord is not bona
fide or untenable and as such not entitled to obtain an order of eviction.
Hence the approach has to be cautious and judicious in granting or refusing D
leave to defend to a tenant to contest an eviction petition within the broad
scheme of Chapter IIIA and in particular having regard to the clear terms and
language of Section 258(5).

We are of the considered view that at a stage when the tenant seeks E
leave to defend, it is enough if he prima facie makes out a case by disclosing
such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction.
It would not be a right approach to say that unless the tenant at that stage
itself establishes a strong case as would non-suit the landlord, leave to
defend should not be granted when it is not the requirement of Section
258(5). A leave to defend sought for cannot also be granted for mere asking F
or in a routine manner which will defeat the very object of the special
provisions contained in Chapter IIIA of the Act. Leave to defend cannot be
refused where an eviction petition is filed on a mere design or desire of a

-- landlord to recover possession of the premises from a tenant under clause (e)
of the proviso to sub-section ( 1) of Section 14, when as a matter of fact the
requirement may not be bona fide. Refusing to grant leave in such a case
G
leads to eviction of a tenant summarily resulting in great hardship to him and
his family members, if any, although he could establish ifonly leave is granted
that a landlord would be disentitled for an order of eviction. At the stage of
granting leave to defend parties rely on affidavits in support of the rival
contentions. Assertions and counter assertions made in affidavits may not H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A afford safe and acceptable evidence so as to arrive at an affirmative conclusion
one way or the other unless there is a strong and acceptable evidence
available to show that the facts disclosed in the application filed by the tenant
seeking leave to defend were either frivolous, untenable or most unreasonable.
Take a case when a possession is sought on the ground of personal
requirement, a landlord has to establish his need and not his mere desire. The
B ground under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section ( l) of Section 14
enables a landlord to recover possession of the tenanted premises on the
ground of his bona fide requirement. This being an enabling provision,
essentially the burden is on the landlord to establish his case affirmatively.
In short and substance wholiy frivolous and totally untenable defence may
C not entitle a tenant to leave to defend but when a triable issue is raised a duty
is placed on the Rent Controller by the statute itself to grant leave. At the
stage of granting leave the real test should be whether facts disclosed in the
affidavit filed seeking leave to defend prima facie show that the landlord
would be disentitled from obtaining an order of eviction and not whether at
the end defence may fail. It is well to remember that when a leave to defend
D is refused, serious consequences of eviction shall follow and the party seeking
leave is denied an opportunity to test the truth of the averments made in the
eviction petition by cross-examination. It may also be noticed that even in
cases where leave is granted provisions are made in this very Chapter for
expeditious disposal of eviction petitions. Section 258(6) states that where
E !eave is granted to a tenant to contest the eviction application, the Controller
shall commence the hearing of the application as early as practicable. Section
258(7) speaks of the procedure to be followed in such cases. Section 258(8)
bars the appeals against an order of recovery of possession except a provision
of revision to the High Court. Thus a combined effect of Section 258(6), (7)
and (8) would lead to expeditious disposal of eviction petitions so that a
F landlord need not wait and suffer for long time. On the other hand, when a
tenant is denied leave to defend although he had fair chance to prove his
•
defence, will suffer great hardship. In this view a balanced view is to be taken
having regard to competing claims.

This Court in Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nand' while dealing with
G the question in the matter of granting leave to defend to contest the eviction
-
petition filed on the ground of personal requirement, in para 5 has stated
thus:-

"5. What should be the approach when leave to defend is sought?

H '(1983) 1 sec 301.
INDERJEET KAUR v. NIRPAL SINGH (SHIVARAJ Y. PATIL, J.] 715

There appears to be a mistaken belief that unless the tenant at that A
stage makes out such a strong case as would non-suit the landlord,
leave to defend cannot be granted. This approach is wholly improper.
When leave to defend is sought, the tenant must make out such a
prima facie case raising such ple~s that a triable issue would emerge
and that in our opinion should be sufficient to grant leave. The test B
is the test of a triable issue and not the final success in the action
(see Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Moo! Singh). At the stage of granting
the leave parties rely in support of their rival contentions on affidavits
and assertions and counter-assertions on affidavits may not afford
such incontrovertible evidence to lead to an affirmative conclusion
one way or the other. Conceding that when possession is sought on C
the ground of personal requirement, an absolute need is not to be
satisfied but a mere desire equally is not sufficient. It has to be
something more than a mere desire. And being an enabling provision,
the burden is on the landlord to establish his case affirmatively. If as
it appears in this case, the landlord is staying at Pathankot, that a
house is purchased, may be in the name of his sons and daughters, D
but there may not be an apparent need to return to Delhi in his old
age, a triable issue would come into existence and that was sufficient
in our opinion to grant leave to defend in this case."

In the same judgment, in para 7 it is further observed:-
E
"7. The genesis of our procedural laws is to be traced to principles
of natural justice, the principal amongst them being that no one shall
suffer civil or evil or pecuniary consequence at his back without
giving him an adequate and effective opportunity to participate to
disprove the case against him and provide his own case. Summary F
procedure does not clothe an authority with power to enjoy summary
dismissal. Undoubtedly wholly frivolous defence may not entitle a
person leave to defend. But equally a triable issue raised, enjoins a
duty to grant leave. Maybe in the end the defence may fail. It is
necessary to bear in mind that when leave to defend is refused the G
party seeking leave is denied an opportunity to test the truth of the
averments of the opposite party by cross- examination and rival
affidavits may not furnish reliable evidence for concluding the point
one way or the other. It is not for a moment suggested that leave to
defend must be granted on mere asking but it is equally improper to
refuse to grant leave though triable issues are raised and the H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A controversy can be properly adjudicated after ascertainment of truth
through cross-examination of witnesses who have filed their affidavits.
Burden is on the landlord to prove his requirements and his assertion
is required to be tested more so when it is shown that for long he is
staying outside Delhi, that he has a building albeit standing in the
names of his sons and daughters where he is staying and at which
B place he receives his normal correspondence. If in such a situation
one can say that a triable issue is not raised, one is at a loss to find
out where, when and in what circumstances such an issue would
arise. We are, therefore, satisfied that this is a case in which triable
issues were raised and both the learned Rent Controller and the High
C Court were in error in refusing to grant the leave."

This decision is also referred to, reiterating the same view, in a later
decision of this Court in the case of Precision Steel & Engineering Works
v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva TayaP.

D With this background, we now tum to the facts of the case in hand. It
is clear from the reading of the order of the Addi. Rent Controller that he has
taken pains to write an elaborate order as if he was writing an order after a
full-dressed trial of eviction petition; he has considered merits of the respective
contentions at the stage of granting leave to defend under Section 258(5)
without keeping in mind the scope of the provisions and statutory duty cast
E on him. He exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him in refusing leave to defend
to the appellant. It appears to us that he did not focus his attention to the
scope and content of Section 258(5). flaving regard to the facts stated and
grounds raised in the affidavit filed by the appellant seeking leave to defend
which we have already narrated above, it is not possible to take a view that
F no triable issue arose for consideration. The facts stated in the affidavit of
the appellant in support of his application seeking leave to defend prima facie
do disclose that the respondent would be disentitled to obtain an order for
the recovery of possession of the premises from the appellant particularly
when other cases are pending between the parties and defence does not
appear to be frivolous or untenable on the face of it. The Addi. Rent Controller
G has acted with material irregularity and committed a manifest error in accepting
the case of the respondent-landlord when the facts were seriously disputed
and the correctness or otherwise of the documents required to be examined.
Whether the suit premises was used for residential-cum-commercial purposes
from the inception and whether the respondent and his son and other members

H '(1982) 3 sec 210.
INDER.IEET KAUR v. NIRPAL SINGH [SHIVARAJ Y. PATIL, J.] 717

of the family are permanently and comfortably settled in U.K. and whether the A
requirement of the premises by the respondent was bona fide, are the matters
which could not be adjudicated as has been done by the Addi. Rent Controller
at the stage of dealing with the application to grant leave to defend. In this
view of the matter, we have no hesitation to say that the order passed by the
Addi. Rent Controller refusing leave to defend to the appellant cannot be B
sustained. Unfortunately, the High Court also has affirmed it without taking
into consideration the correct legal position indicated above having regard to
the facts of the case. We are of the view that the Addi. Rent Controller and
the High Court both were in error in refusing to grant leave to the appellant
to contest the eviction pet:tion.

Hence we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Addi. Rent
Controller as well as of the High Court and grant leave to defend to the
appellant-tenant and remand the matter to the learned Rent Controller for
disposal according to law. No costs.

M.P. Appeal allowed.