Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mohd. Hannan vs Abdul Basit on 11 April, 2019
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, M.R. Shah
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3879 OF 2019
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)No.28191/2017)
MOHD. HANNAN & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ABDUL BASIT Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3880 OF 2019
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)No.28192/2017)
O R D E R
Special Leave Petition (C)No.28191/2017:
Leave granted.
The respondent filed a petition for eviction of the appellant from the Shop No.976, Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi on the ground of bona fide requirement. The appellant filed an application under section 25 of the Delhi Rent control Act seeking leave to defend in which he submitted that the respondent is running several businesses Signature Not Verified in 16 premises. In the affidavit filed under section 25 of Digitally signed by BALA PARVATHI Date: 2019.04.16 15:35:33 IST Reason: the Act, the appellant stated that the respondent has deliberately concealed alternative business premises available to him and as such he has not approached the 2 court bona fide. The additional rent controller rejected the application for leave to defend filed by the appellant. The High Court affirmed the said order of the rent controller in the revision petition filed by the appellant.
The courts below were of the opinion that mere filing of an affidavit with a simple denial of the averments made in the petition for eviction is not sufficient for grant of leave to defend. The High Court held that on the facts disclosed in the application for leave to defend, the landlord would not be dis-entitled from obtaining an order of eviction and hence leave to defend cannot be granted to the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellant took us through the affidavit filed for seeking leave to defend and submitted tht section 25(b) of the Rent Control Act provides for an affidavit to be filed for seeking leave to contest the application for eviction. He submits that no additional material or proof of the averments made in the affidavit need be produced at that stage. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Precision Steel and Engineering Works and Anr. vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal in which the scope of the Section 25 of the Rent Control Act was considered by this Court wherein it was inter alia held as under:
"But what happens if the tenant appears pursuant to the summons issued under sub-sec. 2 of section 25B, files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application. As a corollary it 3 would transpire that the facts pleaded by the landlord are disputed and controverted. How is the Controller thereafter to proceed in the matter. It would be open to the landlord to contest the application of the tenant seeking leave to contest and for that purpose he can file an affidavit in reply but production and admission and evaluation of documents at that stage has no place. The Controller has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant under sub-section 4 and the reply, if any. On persuing the affidavit filed by the tenant and the reply if any filed by landlord the Controller has to pose to himself the only question: Does the affidavit disclose, not prove, facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession on the ground specified in Clause
(e) of the proviso to section 14(1). The Controller is not to record a finding on disputed questions of facts or his preference of one set of affidavits against other set of affidavits. That is not the jurisdiction conferred on the Controller by sub-sec. S because the Controller while examining the question whether there is a proper case for granting leave to contest the application has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant disclosing such facts as would prima facie and not on contest dis-entitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession. At the stage when affidavit is filed under sub-section (4) by the tenant and the same is being examined for the purposes of sub-section (5) the Controller has to confine 4 himself only to the averments in the affidavit and the reply if any and that becomes manifestly clear from the language of sub-
section (S) that the Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would dis-entitle the landlord from recovering possession etc. The jurisdiction to grant leave to contest or refuse the same is to be exercised on the basis of the affidavit filed by the tenant. That alone at stage is the relevant document and one must confine to the averments in the affidavit. If the averments in the affidavit disclose such facts which, if ultimately proved to the satisfaction of the Court, would dis-entitle the landlord from recovering possession, that by itself makes it obligatory upon the Controller to grant leave."
The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant is not entitled for leave to defend the petition for eviction on vague allegations that are made in the affidavit. He supported the judgment of the High court and argued that there is no interference that is warranted.
Having perused section 14 and Section 25(b) of the Rent control Act and the judgment of this Court referred to supra in the case of Precision Steel, we are of the opinion that the affidavit contains sufficient averments on the basis of which the appellant is entitled for leave to defend. As stated by this Court in Precision Steel, the court, while granting leave to defend has to be 5 specified that the facts are stated in the affidavit. Proof of the facts is not required at that stage. The adjudication of the application for leave to defend has to be confined to the averments in the affidavit. If the affidavit discloses the relevant facts, leave should not be refused even if the landlord disputes the said facts.
In view of the above, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and grant leave to the appellant to defend the eviction petition. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the eviction petition filed by the respondent was taken up on 2.2.2016 and was disposed of on 6.4.2016 as the application for leave to defend filed by the appellant was dismissed. He assures us that no adjournment will be sought by the appellant. We are sure that the respondent landlord would also be interested in adjudication of the dispute at the earliest. We direct the Rent Controller to decide the eviction petition expeditiously and not later than six months period.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Special Leave Petition (C)No.28192/2017:
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the order passed today in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)No.28191/2017, as the case is similar to the said case 6 and the only difference between the two cases is that this pertains to shop No. 975.
………………………………………………………J. [L.NAGESWARA RAO] …………………………………………………………J. [M.R.SHAH] New Delhi;
11th April, 2019.
7
ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.13 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).28191/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-09-2017 in RCREV No.441/2017 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) MOHD. HANNAN & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ABDUL BASIT Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 28192/2017 (XIV) Date : 11-04-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Bahar Ul Barqi,Adv.
Mr. Syed Mohammed Aatif,Adv.
Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. V.N.Sinha,Sr.Adv.
Dr. S.K.Verma,Adv.
Mr. Harshit Sanwal,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Verma,Adv.
Mr. Anoop Kr. Srivastav, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(B.Parvathi) (Kailash Chander)
Court Master Assistant Registrar
(Signed order is placed on the file)