Gurbachan Singh vs. Sunder Shyam Sukhija & Ors

Held

The Court bound the parties to a settlement agreement. The petitioner/tenant agreed to pay rent of Rs. 50,000/- per month for the first three years of a five-year lease, commencing September 1, 2017, with a 15% enhancement for the remaining two years. This rent would be in addition to electricity, water charges, and GST. The respondents/landlords agreed to execute a registered Lease Deed in favour of the petitioner/tenant and his son for five years. The Court clarified that upon the execution and registration of this Lease Deed by September 30, 2017, the impugned order of eviction would stand set aside. The landlords' urgent need was acknowledged but they agreed to the settlement for certainty and finality, anticipating that the increased rent would place the premises outside the Rent Act's purview after the five-year period.

Facts

The petitioner, a tenant, filed a Rent Control Revision Petition challenging an order of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing their application for leave to defend an eviction petition. The eviction petition was filed by the respondents, landlords, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for premises located at Shop No.XI/5050, Plot No.12, Ground Floor, Block No.K, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. The High Court had entertained the petition and requisitioned the trial court record. Arguments were heard from both sides.

Key Issues

1. Whether the application for leave to defend, filed by the petitioner/tenant, ought to have been dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller, thereby leading to the eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act? The petitioner argued that the dismissal of their application for leave to defend was erroneous, preventing them from presenting their defense. The respondents/landlords contended that they had an urgent need for the premises. The parties ultimately reached a settlement regarding the terms of tenancy and rent, which the court considered.