Madan Lal Sharma vs. Amit Bansal

Facts

The Petitioner/tenant is challenging an order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the CCJ-cum-ARC, Delhi, which dismissed his Application for Leave to Defend/Contest in an eviction petition concerning two rooms on the ground floor of property No.1309, Vaidwara, Maliwara, Delhi. The eviction petition was filed by the Respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act. The Petitioner's primary contention was that the landlord's need was not bonafide, citing the existence of another tenant operating a saree shop from a portion of the ground floor. The Petitioner had also filed GST details of this entity before the High Court. However, the Respondent argued that these documents were not taken on record by the Trial Court due to being filed belatedly and that the Petitioner deliberately concealed this fact from the High Court. The Petitioner did not challenge the Trial Court's order refusing to take the documents on record.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner had deliberately concealed the order dated 27.07.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court, which had refused to take the documents filed along with the Rejoinder on record. The Petitioner also did not challenge this order before any higher forum and could not provide any valid reason for not filing it before the High Court. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, the Court emphasized that leave to defend cannot be granted routinely or on mere asking, and the principle of 'suppressio veri, expressio falsi' (suppression of truth is equivalent to expression of falsehood) applies. The Court found that the Petitioner's conduct amounted to playing fraud upon the court. Given the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction as outlined in Abid-ul-Islam and other precedents, the Court found no error apparent on the face of the record or absence of adjudication by the Trial Court that warranted interference. Therefore, the Petition was dismissed. Costs of Rs. 25,000/- were imposed on the Petitioner, payable to the Bar Council of Delhi-Indigent and Disabled Lawyers Account, due to his conduct.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner/tenant's application for leave to defend should have been granted, considering the alleged existence of another business (M/s Deepanshi Sarees) operating from the subject premises, thus questioning the bonafide need of the Respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner contended that the Respondent's need was not bonafide because another business, M/s Deepanshi Sarees, was operating from the ground floor of the subject premises. They relied on GST details to support this claim, arguing that these documents demonstrated the ongoing business operations from the premises. Respondent's Argument: The Respondent argued that the documents submitted by the Petitioner, including the GST details, were not taken on record by the learned Trial Court due to being filed belatedly along with the Rejoinder. Furthermore, the Respondent contended that the Petitioner deliberately concealed the Trial Court's order dated 27.07.2024 (which refused to take the documents on record) from the High Court and did not challenge it. The Respondent argued that given this conduct and the concealment, no relief should be granted to the Petitioner. The Respondent also pointed out that the Petitioner's plea before the High Court was contrary to his own Leave to Defend application, where he had stated the premises were vacant.