MANOJ KUMAR versus BIHARI LAL (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 18-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MANOJKUMAR 
A 
v. 
,, 
BIHARI LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. 
APRIL 18, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Sections 14(1) (e) and 25-B. 
Eviction Petition-Leave to contest-Refusal of-Landlord filed eviction c 
petition against the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement-Tenant 
sought leave to contest the petition on the ground that he was not put in 
possession as tenant but on the basis of an agreement to sell the property 
to him-Additional Rent Controller proceeding on the assumption that the 
tenant had not denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and had D 
admitted all the ingredientsfor establishing a case under S. l 4(l)(e) refused 
leave and allowed the eviction petition-High Court dismissed the revision-
Validity of-Held: Strict interpretation of S.25-B is necessaiy as the provision 
-( 
is a drastic measure-Additional Rent controller failed to read the petition 
and the affidavit correctly resulting in the misconceived idea about the case E 
of the tenant-This misconception vitiated the entire order-Hence, orders 
of Additional Rent controller and High Court set aside. 
The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the appellant~ 
tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the appellant and his family 
members under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In the F 
~" 
said election petition the appellant filed an application under Section 25-B of 
the Act seeking leave to contest the 1>rayer for eviction on the ground that 
the a1>1>ellant was put in possession of the suit premises on the basis of the 
=9, 
agreement to sell the 1>ro1>erty to him and not as a tenant. 
' 
The Additional Rent controller proceeding on the assumption that the G 
appellant had not denied the relationshi1> of landlord and tenant and had admitted 
all the ingredients for establishing a case under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act 
/ 
allowed the eviction petition. The High Court dismissed the Revision. Hence 
).-
this appeal. 
Allowing the a11peal, the Court 
H 
73 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1. From the provisions ofSection 25(4) of the Delhi Rent Control 
Act, 1958 it is manifest that in case the tenant's prayer for leave to contest 
is refused by the Controller then he shall be deemed to .have admitted the 
" 
case of bona fide requirement pleaded by the landlord and on the basis of the 
deemed admission an order of eviction will be passed by the Controller. The 
B 
provision presc1ibed is a drastic measure for eviction of tenants, particularly 
in a statute intended to provide protection to the tenants against arbitrary 
and whimsical action of unscru1mlous landlords for their eviction. Therefore, 
strict interpretation of the pro,isions is necessary. On a reasonable and 
purposeful interpretation of the statute, it is clear that if from a l>erusal of 
the petition for leave to contest and the affidavit filed with it, the Controller 
c finds that the tenant has pleaded a triable case then he shall not refuse leave 
to contest the case; otherwise the provision is liable to be misutilised by 
unscrupulous landlords to get their tenants evicted easily. [79:..A-C] 
2.1. Coming to the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, he 
proceeded on the as~umption that the appellant had not denied the relationship 
D of landlord and tenant and in fact had admitted all the i111gredients for 
establishing a case under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. This impression was 
totally erroneous being based on a misreading and misconstruction of the 
petition filed by the appellant seeking leave to contest. On a perusal of the 
1>etition, it is clear that what the appellant had pleaded was that there was no 
)"--
,:: 
E relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties inasmuch as he had 
been put in possession to sell the pro1>erty to him and not a!; a tenant. The 
Additional Rent Controller failed to read the petition and the atlida,it correctly 
which resulted in the misconceived idea about the case of the appellant This 
misconception vitiated the entire order. The High Court also failed to notice 
this manifest error in the order of the additional Rent Controller and disposed 
F of the Revision Petition by merely granting leave to the appcll:mt to approach 
the Civil Court for appropriate interim order in the suits filed by him. The 
order of the Additional Rent Controller, which is manife~ily erroneou

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