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