‘It Is Not For The Tenant To Decide Where The Landlord Will Accommodate Himself’: Delhi HC

The Delhi High court bench comprising Justice Sachin Datta recently said that it is not for the tenant to dictate where the landlord should accommodate himself. The court was hearing a revision petition challenging the eviction order against the petitioner where the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the leave to defend application by the petitioner (tenant).

In the matter at hand the counsel on behalf of the petitioner who is a tenant prayed before the court for some time to take instructions about getting reasonable time to vacate the rented premises. But the matter could not be taken up after that and in the mean time, the landlord passed away and the heirs of the landlord were brought on record. The heirs filed an application seeking the dismissal of the current petition as the time sought earlier by the tenant has already passed. But the counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that he would like to argue.

The eviction petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for the reason that the premises were required for the bona fide requirement of the landlord.it was further stated in the eviction petition that certain other premises owned by the respondent were unsuitable or unavailable for the purpose of the landlord and his family.

However, the tenant resisted the said eviction petition on the following two grounds:

1. It was contended that the landlord had previously filed an eviction petition that came to be dismissed as withdrawn without the liberty to file a fresh petition.
2. It was also contended that the eviction petition itself was barred under order XXIII Rule 1 (4) CPC. 

The court observed that in relation to withdrawal of the eviction petition, the same does not constitute any bar to the filing of a fresh eviction petition as the ground afforded by Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act constitutes a continuing cause of action.

The court noted that in this revision petition, the tenant once against sought to urge that the second eviction petition filed by the landlord is barred under order XXIII Rule 1 (4) CPC and attention is drawn to pleadings file din the previous eviction petition to contend that there is dichotomy between the averments therein and the averments in the instant eviction petition regarding availability of suitable alternative accommodation with the landlord.

The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in N.R. Narayan Swamy v. B. Francis Jagan where it was held that Order XXIII Rule 1 (4) CPC is not applicable to the proceedings initiated to recover possession of tenanted premises on the basis of bona fide requirement. The court also observed that the contention of the petitioner that the respondent has other accommodations is devoid of merit as it was mentioned in the eviction petition that those accommodations are not suitable.

The court observed that any plea of availability of alternative accommodation set up by the tenant must be based on some material and bald assertions made by a tenant are not to be considered sufficient for grant of leave to defend. The court note that it is well settled that it is not for the tenant to decide to dictate to the landlord as how he should accommodate itself. 

The court upheld the eviction order and held that it does not call for interference under Section 25- B(8) of the DRC Act. The petition was hence dismissed.

CASE: KUNDAN LAL MAHESH CHAND V. PADAM CHAND JAIN

R.C. REV. 89/2019