Delhi HC Upholds Tenant’s Chance To Contest Shop Eviction Over Disputed Property Number And Title Documents

The landlord sought eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”) from a shop, claiming a bona fide requirement for his daughter-in-law’s proposed business.

The tenant disputed the landlord–tenant relationship and challenged the landlord’s entitlement to the premises, relying on inconsistencies in the title documents and property numbers, objections to the rectification deed, and discrepancies in the rent pleaded in earlier and present proceedings.

The Additional Rent Controller found no prima facie issue regarding bona fide requirement or alternative accommodation, but granted leave to defend on the other objections, including the disputed relationship, title-document inconsistencies, rent discrepancy and alleged non-disclosure of criminal proceedings.

The landlord challenged that order in revision under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.

Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act requires the landlord to establish the landlord–tenant relationship, bona fide requirement and absence of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation; these requirements are conjunctive.

At the leave-to-defend stage under Section 25-B, the tenant need not conclusively prove the defence, but must disclose a substantial triable issue; a sham or illusory defence is insufficient; Precision Steel & Engineering Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, (1982) 3 SCC 270; Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30.

The landlord need not prove title as in a title suit, but must show a better title vis-à-vis the tenant.

Under the proviso to Section 25-B(8), the High Court exercises limited supervisory and revisional jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction, and may interfere for such matters as a jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, perversity or an error apparent on the record; Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78; Abid-Ul-Islam.

The Court held that the Controller had not undertaken a final adjudication of title; it had considered whether specific objections grounded in the landlord’s own documents raised a triable issue as to the landlord–tenant relationship, which was within the permissible inquiry.

The recital that a predecessor had previously transferred his share, when read with the later sale deed relied on by the landlord, and the objections concerning the property number and rectification deed were sufficient to warrant examination at trial; the Court did not determine their ultimate effect.

The tenant’s denial of having paid rent to the petitioner, the competing rent-related material and the differing rent amounts pleaded in earlier and present proceedings were also matters whose evidentiary effect could not be resolved at the leave stage.

The alleged criminal proceedings were not treated as proof that the landlord’s claim was invalid, but were considered alongside the other circumstances.

Since a triable issue concerning an essential ingredient could justify leave even though bona fide requirement and alternative accommodation were not disputed, and no revisional error was shown, the Court declined to substitute its assessment for the Controller’s.

It directed that the Controller proceed uninfluenced by the observations in the judgment and made no order as to costs.