The Delhi High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a landlord challenging the order of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) which granted leave to defend to the tenant in an eviction petition. The Court held that the existence of a partnership firm as the tenant and the landlord’s failure to controvert allegations regarding alternative accommodation raised clear triable issues.
Case Background
The petitioner, Smt. Meenu Chaurasia, filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking the eviction of the respondent, Shri Ankit Gupta, from the premises located at property no. 588, Gali Bal Mukund, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi.
The petitioner claimed to have purchased the property via a Registered Sale Deed dated September 19, 2012, thereby stepping into the shoes of the landlord. She asserted that the respondent commenced paying rent to her thereafter. The eviction was sought on the grounds of bona fide requirement, stating that the petitioner, a widow, intended to start a business for her son who had lost his employment during the Covid-19 pandemic. She contended that she had no other alternative accommodation in Delhi for this purpose.
The Dispute
The respondent contested the petition, arguing that the Eviction Petition was wrongly filed against him in his personal capacity. He submitted that the actual tenant was a partnership firm, “M/s. Bishambhar Nath Hem Chand.” Furthermore, the respondent alleged that the petitioner had concealed the existence of other properties available to her, specifically mentioning vacant shops on the ground floor of a property in Gali Lehswa, Delhi.
The learned Additional Rent Controller, vide order dated January 22, 2024, observed that the respondent had raised triable issues and granted the application for leave to defend. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel for the petitioner argued that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the petitioner and the alleged partnership firm. It was submitted that the tenancy was originally with two individuals,
Bishambhar Nath and Hem Chand, and the respondent became a tenant by inheritance. The petitioner relied on a Partnership Deed dated July 1, 2021, to argue that no firm existed prior to that date.
Alternatively, the petitioner argued that even if the firm was the tenant, it stood dissolved upon the death of a partner under Section 42(c) of the Partnership Act, 1932, and the respondent, as a partner, was competent to contest the petition.
Regarding the bona fide requirement, the counsel submitted that the presumption of genuineness lies with the landlord, and the burden is on the tenant to rebut it, which the respondent allegedly failed to do.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Saurabh Banerjee, after reviewing the pleadings and documents, noted significant discrepancies in the petitioner’s stance regarding the identity of the tenant.
The Court observed that the sale deed and chain of title documents produced by the petitioner herself indicated that the subject premises were under the tenancy of a partnership firm. The Court noted:
“The duly registered Sale Deed dated 19.09.2012 by virtue whereof the petitioner acquired the subject property, along with the other related chain of title documents produced by the petitioner herself before the learned ARC only show that the subject premises was under the tenancy of a partnership firm.”
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the petitioner had filed a counter foil of a rent receipt which, by her own admission, showed “M/s Bishamber Nath Hem Chand” as the tenant. The Court held that the initiation of eviction proceedings against an individual rather than the recognized entity shrouded the matter in mystery and went to the root of the case.
Addressing the petitioner’s shifting arguments, Justice Banerjee remarked:
“Clearly, the petitioner is trying to sail in two boats by modifying her actual case, to overcome deficiencies.”
The Court found that since the very existence of the partnership firm as a tenant was in dispute, the reliance placed by the petitioner on various judgments was misplaced, and the matter constituted a triable issue.
On Alternative Accommodation
The High Court also addressed the respondent’s specific claim regarding alternative accommodation available to the petitioner. The respondent had asserted that there were four vacant shops on the ground floor of property no. 1927, Gali Lehswa, Mohalla Imli, Kucha Pati Ram, Delhi.
The Court observed:
“Further, the petitioner has never controverted the respondent’s assertions regarding the availability of four vacant shops on the ground floor of the property bearing no.1927, Gali Lehswa… So, there is a cloud over the aspects of (non-) availability of alternative accommodation with the petitioner. This again gives rise to a triable issue.”
Decision
Citing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Abid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua, the High Court concluded that the case did not call for interference in its revisionary jurisdiction.
The Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the ARC’s decision to grant the tenant leave to defend the eviction suit.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Meenu Chaurasia vs. Shri Ankit Gupta
- Case Number: RC.REV. 175/2024, CM APPL. 37667/2024
- Coram: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
