Vague Denial of Specific Alternative Accommodations in Eviction Petitions Constitutes a Triable Issue Entitling Tenant to Leave to Defend

The respondent (landlord), an advocate, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA), 1958, against the petitioners (tenants) for the bonafide requirement of storing his library and client files

The respondent claimed he was facing space constraints in his Tis Hazari Court chamber and was forced to vacate a permissive space at Ansari Road

The petitioners filed a ‘leave to defend’ application, asserting that the respondent had concealed several vacant alternate properties and that the electricity bills for his alleged residence at Bazar Sita Ram showed negligible consumption (3 units), suggesting it was actually vacant and available

The Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dismissed the petitioners' application on 09.08.2018, granting an eviction order

The petitioners challenged this via a revision petition

1. Whether the petitioners raised triable issues regarding the availability of alternative suitable accommodation that would entitle them to leave to defend.

2. Whether the findings of the Rent Controller were "according to law" under the revisional scope of Section 25B(8) of the DRCA.

The court primarily applied Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which defines the High Court's revisional power to ensure orders are "according to law"

It relied on the principle from Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, establishing that while the High Court isn't an appellate court, it must interfere if the Controller ignores evidence or proceeds on a wrong legal premise

It further considered the doctrine that for a tenant to obtain leave to defend, they must disclose facts that would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an eviction order, as per Section 25B(4) & (5) of the DRCA

The High Court found that the petitioners had specifically listed several properties in Paragraph 48 of their affidavit (e.g., Premises No. 31, 32, 29, 30 at Nai Sarak) which they alleged were vacant and available to the landlord

The court noted that the respondent-landlord provided only a vague, general denial to these specific assertions without clarifying the status or occupation of said properties

The court reasoned that the ARC failed to address or return findings on these specific properties

Furthermore, the court observed that the negligible electricity consumption at the Bazar Sita Ram property raised a triable issue regarding whether that space was truly the respondent’s residence or an available alternate accommodation

Applying the Shiv Sarup Gupta standard, the court determined that the ARC’s failure to consider these specific assertions rendered the order "not according to law" as it ignored material evidence

The Court held that the petitioners successfully raised triable issues regarding the availability of alternative suitable accommodation which require a full trial

The matter was remanded to the ARC to allow the petitioners leave to defend and to proceed with the trial on merits