NEM CHAND DAGA Vs. INDER MOHAN SINGH RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Revision Petition the challenge is in respect of the Order dated 28.9.2000 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in which he has declined to grant the Tenant 'Leave to Contest' the eviction petition. Such Orders invariably require the Court to successfully undertake a tightrope walk, since the competing interest of the tenant and the landlord have to be kept in balance. The Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') accorded protection to tenants against eviction. While it contained several grounds on which eviction could be prayed for, in almost all of them, the Tenant was afforded an additional protection. For example, even if there is a default in payment of rent, the tenant is not to be evicted for his first default; if it is found that the Tenant has misused the property the Landlord has still -to prove that such misuser is detrimental to his interests; if the Tenant uses the premises contrary to any conditions imposed on the landlord', the former can nonetheless resist eviction if he pays compensation to the Authority concerned. In respect of eviction on the grounds of the bona fide need of the Landlord for residential user of the demised property, the Legislature made a conscious- shift in the approach and attitude, in terms of Chapter III-A and Section 25-B in particular of the Act. These provisions indicate that in this genre of cases, a summary trial should be conducted. This part of the Act should not be ignored and every effort must be made to implement its intent.

(2.) It would be best to refer to the observations of A.P. Sen, J. in the partly dissenting opinion delivered by him in Precision Steel & Engineering Works and another v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, (1982) 3 SCC 270.

(3.) In any discussion on the circumstances which would be relevant for the grant or refusal to grant leave to contest an eviction petition in which Section 14(1 )(e) of the Act has been invoked, the understanding and implementation of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inderjeet Kaur vs. Nirpal Singh, JT 2001 (1) SC 308 = 89 (2001) Delhi Law Times 27 (SC) is now essential. A reading of the following paragraph makes it evident that leave to contest should be granted only .where a prima facie case has been disclosed by the Tenant. In this event, the Rent. Controllers should grant leave to contest and desist from entering into a final consideration of the grounds disclosed on their possible merits. The Rent Controllers should not obviate a Trial at this stage, by going into the merits of the grounds raised by the Tenant, if a final conclusion can be reached only after evidence is led in the Trial. The only possible exception may be where the grounds raised are strictly legal in character, not- necessitating the holding of a trial. It should be borne in mind that a Trial is required for establishing facts, and not law. The Apex Court has opined in Inder jeet Kaur'case (supra) as follows:-.