N.C. DAGA versus LNDER MOHAN SINGH RANA

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 619 · Decided: 05-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
N.C. DAGA 
v. 
lNDER MOHAN SINGH RANA 
DECEMBER 5, 2002 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRl AND 
ARlJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Sections 14(1) proviso (e), 25-B-Eviction 
petition on ground of bonafide requirement-Leave to defend-Rent Controller C 
declining leave to defend and passing eviction order-High Court upholding 
the same-Appeal-Plea of tenant raised for the first time that for more than 
two decades tenant carrying on commercial activities, thus implied consent-
Held: since possession has been taken on execution of the eviction order and 
absence of specific stand regarding implied consent, it is not necessary t'o go 
into the details. 
D 
Respondent-landlord filed eviction petition on the ground of bonajide 
requirement. Appellant-tenant filed application for grant of leave to 
defend. It was contended tha.t there was no relationship of landlord and 
tenant between the parties, and in any event the premises were let out for 
residential/commercial purposes. Rent Controller held that there was E 
primafacie material to show that applicant was the landlord and the owner 
of the premises; that the lease-deed did not indicate that the premises were 
let out for residential cum commercial purposes, on the contrary it 
indicated availability of option to use the premises for commercial 
purposes after requisite formalities were observed; and that the tenant F 
failed to make out a case for grant of leave to defend. Rent Controller 
passed eviction order. Aggrieved tenant filed Revision Petition. High Court 
held that the tenant had not filed any document to support the plea in 
regard to the commercial use of the premises and also that no primafacie 
case was made out by the tenant and dismissed the revision. 
Appellant contended that a bare reading of lease agreement made 
it clear that the premises were let out for residential and commercial 
purposes and that the jurisdiction to grant leave or refuse the same is to 
be exercised on the basis of the affidavit filed by tenant; and that even if 
it is conceded for the sake of argument that lease agreement did not make 
619 
G 
H 
620 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. 4 S.CR. 
A out a case for commercial user, yet the fact that for more than two decades 
the tenant was carrying on commercial activities in the tenanted premises 
clearly made out a case of consent. 
Respondent-landlord contended that the whole case built up by 
tenant centered round the lease deed and plea of implied consent was 
B raised for the first time before this Court. It was further contended that 
in any event, matter has become infructuous because. the possession was 
taken pursuant to execution of the order passed by Rent Controller. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: In view of the admitted position that pursuant to the order 
passed by the Rent Controller, possession has been taken on execution of 
the order permitting eviction, and absence of specific stand regarding 
implied consent it is, however, not necessary to go into the finer- details 
and to examine the' rival stand in the background of legal position as it 
D would amount to rendering decision on a purely academic question. 
[622-D-E] 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8131 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.9.2001 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.R. No. 12 of 2001. 
Jaspal Singh, K.C. Diwan and Ms. C.K. Sucharita, for the Appellant. 
Salman Khurshid, Vivek Singh and Devendra Singh, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. L.eave granted. 
Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of the Delhi High Court 
G upholding decision of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi (in short 'the 
Rent Controller') declining leave to the present appellant to contest in a 
proceeding under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to 
as 'the Act'). 
Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. The respondent-
H landlord filed a petition for eviction on several grounds; primarily on the 
" 
N.C. DAGA v. l.M.S. RANA [ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
621 
ground of personal requirements. Before the Rent Controller an application A 
was moved under Section 25-B 9f the Act by the appellant-tenant for grant 
of leave to defend said eviction petition filed under Section 14(1), proviso (e) 
of the Act, by the present respondent-landlord. On I 0.9. I 999 landlord had 
filed the eviction petition alleging that he wanted the premises for his

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