Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Inderjeet Kaur vs Nirpal Singh on 15 December, 2000
In Inderjeeet Kaur vs. Nirpal Singh (2001) 1 SCC 706 the Apex
Court has held that
"13.We are of the considered view that 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
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 25B(5). A
leave to defend sought for cannot also be granted for mere
asking 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
leads to eviction of a tenant summarily resulting in great
hardship to him and his family members, if any, although
he could establish if only 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
R.C.Rev.No265/2012. Page 3 of 7
support of the rival contentions. Assertions and counter
assertions made in affidavits may not 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 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 bona fide requirement. This
being an enabling provision, essentially the burden is on
the landlord to establish his case affirmatively. In short
and substance wholly frivolous and 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....."
Section 25B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
1