Delhi High Court
Smt. Shakuntala & Ors. vs Smt. Kanti Devi & Anr. on 31 July, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. REV. No. 352/2012
% 31st July , 2014
SMT. SHAKUNTALA & ORS. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kriti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Pawan K. Bahl, Mr. Sajan K. Singh
and Mr. Aman Bhalla, Advocates.
VERSUS
SMT. KANTI DEVI & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. O.P.Verma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this petition under Section 25(B)(8)
of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is to the impugned judgment of the
Additional Rent Controller dated 16.5.2012 by which the Additional Rent
Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application and has granted
eviction with respect to the suit premises comprised of two halls on the first
floor in the property bearing municipal no. IX/1254, Satish Market, Tikona
Park, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhli-31.
RCR 352/2012 Page 1 of 4
2. The Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal
Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 has held that the statutory
period of 15 days for filing the leave to defend application is sacrosanct and
delay of even one day cannot be condoned. Impliedly therefore it is also the
ratio of the Supreme Court that additional affidavits or grounds or
documents cannot be filed after the period of 15 days. The issue however is
that if there are actual subsequent events happening post the period of 15
days of filing of the leave to defend application, whether the ratio of
Prithipal Singh's case (supra) bars the court from considering such events
which affect the bonafide necessity one way or the other happening after the
period of 15 days from filing of the leave to defend application.
3. In view of the factual position which emerges in this case with
respect to subsequent events which are averred by the petitioner/tenant
happening after the 15 days period, as also certain subsequent events which
the respondent/landlord avers have happened after 15 days period by which
it is agreed that even the respondent/landlord should be allowed to plead
additional facts for buttressing the bonafide necessity petition, besides
challenging the subsequent events which are pleaded by the petitioner/tenant
for grant of leave to defend application, it is hence agreed that the Additional
RCR 352/2012 Page 2 of 4
Rent Controller be requested to decide the application for leave to defend
afresh subject to the following directions:-
(i) Petitioner/tenant will file an additional affidavit before the Additional
Rent Controller on the first date which is fixed before the Additional Rent
Controller supported by the necessary documents, and which affidavit and
documents will be confined to subsequent events affecting the bonafide
necessity petition happening after the 15 days period prescribed for grant of
leave to defend application.
(ii) Respondent-landlord shall file reply to this additional affidavit
controverting the aspects which are mentioned therein as also pleading such
additional facts supported by documents if so required of happening of
subsequent events which buttress and enhance the case with respect to the
bonafide necessity. This reply affidavit of respondent/landlord will be filed
within a period of four weeks of filing of the affidavit with respect to
subsequent events by the petitioner/tenant.
(iii) In case, the respondent/landlord in his additional affidavit adds facts
beyond the facts required to be stated for replying to the additional
averments by the petitioner/tenant with respect to the subsequent events,
then qua those additional facts and documents pleaded by the landlord, the
RCR 352/2012 Page 3 of 4
petitioner/tenant can file rejoinder affidavit within a period of four weeks of
the reply affidavit being filed by the respondent-landlord.
(iv) The Additional Rent Controller is requested to complete hearing of
the arguments on application for leave to defend by considering the
additional affidavits and documents filed by both the parties pursuant to the
present order, within a period of three months of the pleadings being
complete pursuant to the present order.
4. In view of the above, it is agreed that the impugned order dated
16.5.2012 is set aside, however, the Additional Rent Controller will now
pass a fresh order and the leave to defend aspect in accordance with law
taking into account the observations made in the present order.
5. Parties are directed to appear before the District and Sessions
Judge (East District) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 25.8.2014 and District
and Sessions Judge will mark the eviction petition to a competent
court/Additional Rent Controller/Rent Controller in accordance with law.
Dasti to counsel for the parties.
JULY 31, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
