SHANTI DEVI Vs RAJESH KUMAR JAIN
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,R. BANUMATHI
Case number: C.A. No.-009378-009378 / 2014
Diary number: 39867 / 2012
Advocates: K. V. MOHAN Vs
Page 1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9378 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 37274/2012)
SHANTI DEVI ...Appellant
Versus
RAJESH KUMAR JAIN & ANR. ..Respondents
O R D E R
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted.
2. In this appeal, short question falling for
consideration is whether the appellant be granted leave to
defend the eviction petition filed by the respondents-
landlords.
3. Appellant is a tenant in respect of shop premises
situated on the ground floor of a property No. 6157, Partap
Page 2
Street, Behind Kothi Bhagwan Dass, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi -110031 since 1988. The appellant has been engaged
in carrying on her business (Disco Hair Dresser) in the said
premises. The respondents-landlords filed an eviction
petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act
(DRC Act) against the appellant, interalia, on the ground of
bonafide requirement to open office-cum-display counter on
the main road side to expand their business of cosmetic unit.
The appellant filed application under Section 25B (5) of DRC
Act read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave to defend the
eviction petition. The appellant raised the plea that there is
no bonafide requirement and that the respondents have
alternative accommodation. The Addl. Rent Controller,
Karkardooma Court, Delhi dismissed the application of the
appellant-tenant on the ground that the appellant has failed
to raise any triable issue. Being aggrieved, the appellant
filed revision petition before the High Court under sub-
section (8) of Section 25B of DRC Act and the same was
dismissed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
2
Page 3
4. We have heard counsel for the appearing parties.
Learned counsel for respondents contended that the
landlords needed the property in question to expand their
business, as the space currently available to them is
insufficient. It was submitted that the appellant-tenant
owned another property, along with her husband in the same
locality, where she could shift her business. The appellant-
tenant denied the issues raised by the respondents-landlords
with respect to having alternative accommodations.
5. We are not inclined to go into the merits of rival
contentions, lest, it would amount to expression of views on
the merits of the matter. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, we are of the view, that the appellant has raised a
triable issue, in the sense, that there is a fair dispute to be
tried in the eviction petition and the appellant be granted
leave to defend. However, leave to defend could be granted
to the appellant only conditionally. When the revision
petition was pending before the High Court, the appellant
agreed to pay to the landlords rent at the rate of Rs.3,000/-
per month and the same could be continued.
3
Page 4
6. The impugned order of the High Court in Revision
Petition No. 347/2011 is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
The appellant shall file her reply statement before the Addl.
Rent Controller, Karkardooma Court, Delhi within four weeks
from today and the learned Addl. Rent Controller shall afford
sufficient opportunity to both the parties and proceed with
the matter in accordance with law and dispose of the same
preferably within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of copy of this Order. Till the disposal of the eviction
petition, the appellant shall continue to pay rent at the rate
of Rs.3,000/- per month on or before 7th of each
succeeding English calendar month. No costs.
…………………………J (T.S. Thakur)
…………………………J (R. Banumathi)
New Delhi; October 9, 2014
4