Summary of Opinion — RC. REV. 439/2017 (Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a Rent Control Revision Petition filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19858 challenging an order dated 21 July 2017 of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The impugned order had dismissed the petitioner's application for leave to defend an eviction petition brought by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, and had resulted in an order for eviction of the petitioner from private shop No. 1 in property No. A-10/119, Moti Nagar, New Delhi.

The court recorded that the counsels had been heard. Prior short procedural orders recorded in the file include: appearance of the counsel for the caveator/respondent; discharge of the caveat; and allowance of an application for exemption (CM No. 34635/2017) subject to just exceptions. The present revision (RC. REV. 439/2017) along with CM No. 34634/2017 (for stay) was then considered.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the order of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to defend the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) should be sustained, or whether leave to defend should be granted to the petitioner.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent's eviction petition alleged necessity of the shop for the respondent's grandson Gurpreet Singh.
• It was pleaded that Gurpreet Singh was unemployed and dependent upon the respondent for accommodation.
• The petition asserted that Kultar Singh (the respondent's son and father of Gurpreet Singh) had severed relations with his son Gurpreet Singh, making Gurpreet dependent on the respondent for accommodation.
• In reply to the petitioner's leave to defend application, the respondent admitted existence of multiple shops but stated that two shops had been sold, one was tenanted by the petitioner, another tenanted by Babbar Jewellers, and that in 2008 she had entered into an agreement to sell three shops in favour of her son Kultar Singh and handed over possession of those three shops to him (thereby contending those shops were not available for Gurpreet).

Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner, in his application for leave to defend, pleaded that there are seven shops on the ground floor: one in his tenancy, another in the tenancy of Babbar Jewellers, and the remaining four in the respondent's possession, of which three were lying vacant.
• The petitioner's counsel contended the three shops were closed and vacant, contrary to the respondent's later claim of an agreement to sell those shops in 2008.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by examining the pleadings and the state of facts as they appeared at the leave-to-defend stage. Key elements of the court's analysis are set out below:

1. The respondent's eviction petition alleged that the shop was required for the respondent's grandson Gurpreet Singh, who was said to be unemployed and dependent on the respondent. The petition additionally alleged that the grandson's father, Kultar Singh, had severed relations with his son.
2. The petitioner, in his leave-to-defend application, asserted there were seven ground-floor shops: one in his tenancy, one tenanted by Babbar Jewellers, and four in the respondent's possession, with three of those shops vacant.
3. In reply, the respondent admitted the existence of multiple shops but claimed two were sold, one was tenanted by the petitioner and another by Babbar Jewellers, and—crucially—alleged that in 2008 she had entered into an agreement to sell three shops to her son Kultar Singh and had handed possession of those shops to him, rendering them unavailable for the grandson.
4. The court noted important deficiencies and inconsistencies in the respondent's material: there was no registered sale document; the petition for eviction did not disclose the alleged agreement to sell; no particulars had been provided regarding the alleged severance of relations between Kultar Singh and his son Gurpreet; and there was no pleading that Kultar had, since 2008, exercised any rights as owner or agreement purchaser in possession of the three shops.
5. Given these features, the court inquired whether the respondent's material at least at the leave-to-defend stage amounted to creating an artificial paucity of accommodation. The court observed that the factual pattern and late emergence of the agreement-to-sell claim (appearing only in reply) raised suspicion that the respondent's case might not be genuine.
6. Applying the test from Vijay Kumar Ahluwalia v. Bishan Chand Maheshwari for deciding whether leave to defend should be granted, the court concluded that the respondent's case could not be regarded as genuine on the available record and therefore the denial of leave to defend could not be sustained.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court set aside the impugned order denying leave to defend and granted leave to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act. The petition (revision) was disposed of.

Direct consequences and directions:

• The petitioner was directed to file the written statement within thirty days and to serve an advance copy on the counsel for the respondent.
• The parties were directed to appear before the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 2nd November, 2017.
• The court recorded earlier procedural orders on the file: the caveat stood discharged, and CM No. 34635/2017 (for exemption) was allowed subject to just exceptions; the application (revision) was disposed of.

Implications for precedent: The court applied an existing Supreme Court test (Vijay Kumar Ahluwalia v. Bishan Chand Maheshwari) in evaluating the genuineness of the respondent's case at the leave-to-defend stage. The opinion does not purport to lay down a new principle or overrule prior authority; it applies the cited test to the facts before it.