Concealment of alternative accommodation and contradictory pleadings regarding property ownership constitute triable issues warranting leave to defend.

The Petitioner (landlady) filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA), 1958, against the Respondent (tenant) for a shop in Karol Bagh.

She claimed the premises were bona fide required for her daughter, an optometrist, to start a clinic and asserted she had no other suitable alternate accommodation.

The Respondent filed a "leave to defend" application, alleging the Petitioner suppressed material facts regarding several vacant floors and shops in the subject property and another nearby property (No. 68-69/5360).

The Additional Rent Controller (ARC) granted leave to defend on August 1, 2023, finding triable issues regarding the availability of alternate accommodation.

The Petitioner challenged this order via revision.

1. Whether the Respondent raised triable issues regarding the non-availability of alternate suitable accommodation that would disentitle the landlord from seeking summary eviction.

2. Whether the Petitioner’s non-disclosure and inconsistent stands regarding her ownership of other properties necessitated a full trial.

Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which governs eviction for bona fide requirement and the summary procedure for contesting such claims.

Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh, establishing that at the leave to defend stage, the tenant only needs to make a prima facie case disclosing facts that would disentitle the landlord from an eviction order.

M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma, which mandates that if vacant premises exist, the landlord must establish why they are unsuitable.

Section 25B(8) as defined in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua and Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. regarding the restrictive nature of revisional jurisdiction.

The Court observed that while a landlord is generally the best judge of their requirements, they must approach the court with clean hands regarding available space.

The Court found significant contradictions in the Petitioner’s pleadings: while the site plan showed her husband occupying a ground-floor shop, her reply to the leave to defend application claimed he was on the first floor, leaving the status of the ground-floor space unexplained.

The Respondent produced electricity bills in the Petitioner’s name for shops in another property which the Petitioner had initially denied owning or had claimed were sold via an unverified "draft" sale deed.

The Court reasoned that these inconsistencies and the lack of transparency regarding the occupancy of upper floors and the second property created material triable issues.

Under the limited scope of Section 25B(8), the Court found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the ARC’s decision to allow the tenant to test these claims at trial.

The High Court dismissed the Revision Petition, upholding the ARC’s order dated August 1, 2023, and the parties were directed to proceed with the trial in the court of the learned Rent Controller.