J.P. ANAND versus D.G. BAFFNA

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 30-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

J.P. ANAND 
A 
v. 
D.G.BAFFNA 
OCTOBER 30, 2001 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.J 
B 
Rent and eviction : 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: 
Ss. 25-8( 5) and 14( 1 )( e )-Petition for eviction of tenant on ground of 
bona.fide requirement-Summary trial-Application of tenant uls 258(5) seek-
ing leave of court to contest eviction petition-Rent Controller dismissing 
application of tenant and ordering his eviction-Revision petition of tenant 
dismissed by High Court-Tenant contending that the grounds stated in affida-
vit accompanying his application, inter alia, denying relationship of "landlord 
and tenant" and bona fide requirement of landlord not considered by Rent 
Controller and High Court-Held, tenant's claim that he had purchased the 
premises under an oral agreement, paid part consideration and was occupying 
premises as an owner was held by Rent Controller and High Court as un-
founded-Besides, plea as such not raised before the said courts-On the other 
hand, a copy of agreement of tenancy available on record-As regards tenant 
opposing landlord's ground ~f bona.fide requirement, Rent Controller.found 
that wife and married daughters ~f landlord merely applied to Delhi Develop-
ment Authority.for allotment ~f accommodation which did not amount to having 
alternative accommodation and the requirement of landlord was bona fide. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3201 of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.99 of the Delhi High Court in 
C.R. No. 61 of 1999. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Rajiv Dutta, Ms. Erakshi Kulshrestha and Rakesh K. Sharma for the 
G 
1 ~ • 
appellant. 
ent. 
Ashok Kumar Chhabra and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Respond-
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
593 
H 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
This appeal by special leave is from the judgment and order of the High 
B 
c 
Court of Delhi in Civil Revision No. 61 of 1999 dated February 5, 1999. The 
dispute in this appeal arises under Section 25B(5) of the Delhi Rent Control 
Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act'). 
The respondent filed eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act 
in the court of Rent Controller, Delhi, stating that the appellarit is the tenant 
of Flat No. 21-D, SFS, Motia Khan, New Delhi (for short, 'the premises') and 
he needed it for his bona fide personal occupation. On receiptof summons of 
the eviction petition, the appellant filed an application under Section 25B(5) 
of the Act seeking leave of the court to contest the eviction petition. . --
On considering the material placed before it, the learned Additional Rent 
Controller dismissed }he application of the appellant and ordered eviction 9f 
the appellant on August 19, 1998. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged that 
order in the High Court of Delhi by filing the revision, referred to above, which 
D 
was dismissed by the impugned order on February 5, 1999. Thus, the appellant 
is in appeal in this Court. 
E 
F 
G 
Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel for the appellant, contends that . 
in the affidavit accompanying the application seeking leave to defend the 
eviction petition numerous groun~ are taken but both the learned Additional 
Rent Controller as well as the High Court did not· properly appreciate the 
ground that the appellant denied the relationship of 'landlord and tenant', 
between the parties, which if accepted would non-suit the respondent as such 
leave.to defend ought to have been granted. Learned counsel for the respondent 
submits .that the appellant's only claim before the court of the Rent Controller 
as well as the High Court was that he had purchased the premises and has been 
in· its possession not as a tenant but as an owner thereof and that was found 
against the appellant. He did not urge specifically before the Rent Controller 
or before the High Court that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not 
exist between them as such that ground was not dealt with specifically by the 
courts. 
The point for consideration is : whether on true interpretation of sub-
section (5) of Section 25B of the Act, the appellant has been illegally denied 
leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the respondent. 
H 
Chapter III A was inserted in the Act by Act 18 of 197 6(with effect from 
., 
.. 
'l I 
.) 
' ,. 
J.P. ANAND v. D.G. BAFFNA 
595 
December l, 1975 which contains three sections. Section 25B, appears in that 
chapter and provides for summary trial of certain applications. W

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.