VIJAY KUMAR AHLUWALIA & ORS. versus BISHAN CHAND MAHESHWARI & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 680 · Decided: 07-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 1 S.C.R.680 
VIJAY KUMAR AHLUWALIA & ORS. 
v. 
BISHAN CHAND MAHESHWARI & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1546 of2017) 
FEBRUARY 07, 20 I 7 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, I958 - ss. 25 B(4), I4 (e) -Application 
filed by appellants (tenants) u!s. 25B(4) for grant of leave to contest 
the eviction proceedings filed by respondent No.I (landlord) against 
the appellants u!s. I4(e) - Rejection of, by courts below - On 
appeal, held: While considering the grant of leave to contest the 
eviction proceedings under the Rent Laws, the Authority/Court is 
not expected to examine the merits and demerits of the grounds 
raised in the application for grant of leave to contest and if the 
Authority/Court finds that the grounds raised prima facie disclose 
a defence which, if accepted, may result in non-suiting the landlord 
from claiming eviction, tenant is entitled to obtain leave to contest 
the eviction proceedings on merits - On facts, grounds sufficient 
for granting leave to the appellants to contest the eviction 
application of respondent No. I on merits - Grounds raised by 
appellants, if accepted, could result in dismissal of respondent No.Is 
eviction application thereby dis entitling him to claim appellants' 
eviction from the suit shop - Thus, the order passed by Additional 
Rent Controlling Authority set aside. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:l.I The ground relating to proof of ownership of 
respondent No.I over the suit shop, which was based O'l the 
alleged adoption deed set up by him, for the first time, after I 7 
years coupled with the ground in relation to devolution oftei.ancy 
between the parties after the death of landlady and lastly, the 
ground relating to bona fide need and availability of the alternative 
accommodation did disclose primafacie facts within the meaning 
of sub-sections 4 and 5 of Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control 
Act, I958 to contest the eviction application of respondent_ No.I 
on merits. It is, inter alia, for the reasons, though prima facie, 
that the appellants had not attorned to respondent No.I as the 
680 
VIJAY KUMAR AHLUWALIA & ORS. v. BISHAN CHAND 
MAHESH\\'ARI & ANR. 
owner of the suit shop and, in turn, his status as landlord; there 
was no evidence to prove the existence of relationship of landlord 
and tenant between the parties; and specific averments were made 
by the appellants to show availability of alternative accommodation 
to satisfy the need of respondent No.1, if it really existed. The 
said grounds; were sufficient for granting leave to the appellants 
to contest the eviction application of respondent No.1 on merits. 
[Paras 18-20] 
[684-F-H; 685-A-B] 
1.2 While considering the grant ofleave to contest the eviction 
proceedings under the Rent L'.!w.s, the Authority/Court is not 
expected to examine the merits and demerits of the grounds raised 
in the application for grant of leave to cnntest and if the Authority/ 
Court finds that the grounds raised prima facie disclose a defence 
which, if accepted, may result in non-suiting the landlo~d from 
claiming eviction, the tenant is entitled to obtain leave to contest 
the eviction proceedings on merits. In the instant case, it is found 
that the appellants-tenant have made out such grounds and 
therefore, a prima facie case was made out entitling the appellants 
for grant of leave to contest the eviction proceedings filed by 
respondent No.1 against them on merits. The grounds raised by 
the appellants, if accepted, could result in dismissal of res~ondent 
No.1 's eviction application thereby disentitling him to claim 
appellants' eviction from the suit shop. Thus, the reasoning and 
the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controlling Authority and 
the High Court cannot be concurred with. The impugned judgment 
and the order passed by the Additional Rent Controlling Authority 
are set aside. [Paras 17, 21-23] (684-D-E; 685-C, D-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1546 of 
2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2014 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in RC Rev. No. 76 of2013. 
Nikunj Dayal, Pramod Dayal, Ms. Payal Dayal, Advs. for the 
681 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Appellants. 
G 
S. Gurukrishna Kumar, Sr. Adv., Ms. Meenesh Dubey, Mohan Raj, 
S. R. Setia, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the C_ourt was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
H 
682 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT R'£PbRTS 
[2

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