B R ANAND Vs. PREM SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the Order of the Rent Controller dated 5.8.2000 whereby the Tenant's application seeking Leave to Contest the eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act') had been dismissed. Learned counsel for the 'Petitioner/Tenant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder jeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh, JT 2001 (1) SC 308. What has been observed by the Apex Court is as follows:

(2.) What is, therefore, to be considered is whether the Tenant has disclosed such facts as would prima facie disentitle the Landlord from claiming eviction. Grounds which are unrealistic or wholly unsubstantiated, or are in the nature of moonshine, cannot be viewed as having disclosed a prima facie'case, for grant of Leave to Contest the eviction petition. It is only when the facts pleaded by the Tenant disclose a triable case that Leave to Contest is to be granted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is not proper for the Rent Controllers to prejudge any issue, that is before a trial is concluded. Opportunity must be granted to the Tenant to prove its case once a triable issue has been raised. However, this opportunity is not to be given where the defence disclosed is frivolous and vexatious. The Apex Court has also observed that where additional accommodation is pleaded to be needed, Leave to Contest should ordinarily be granted. .This has been so held in Santosh Devi Soni v. Chand , JT 2000 (3) SC 397.

(3.) In the present case the Tenant has asserted that the premises were.let for composite purposes and that he was using a part thereof as a Beauty Parlour. There is no satisfactory reply to the.Landlord"s argument that in the previous petition filed under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRC Act, the Tenant had admitted that the premises were Let for residential purposes. At least ,a bare denial in respect of this averment was necessary even if this issue did not arise in that petition since the ground urged was of the non-payment of rent. The Tenant is clearly estopped from taking a stand contrary to that adopted in the previous litigation. Moreover;, the property has been developed by the Delhi Development Authority and has been held not to be of commercial character. It has also been taken into account that the Rent Agreement has no whisper of commercial activity. The Rent Controller has correctly returned a finding that it was let for residential purpose only,and that no grounds, even prima facie, have been disclosed for the grant of Leave to Contest.