SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI, R.C. Lahoti and Brijesh Kumar, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1145 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10976 of 1999). D/d. 9.2.2001

Mohammed Yusuf - Appellant

Versus

Sharifuddin - Respondent

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956, Section 25B - bonafide requirement - Earlier petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement dismissed - After about 2 years application for eviction on the same ground - Tenant filed application under Section 25B for leave to defend - Application allowed.

[Para 5]

JUDGMENT

Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI. - On 16.8.1999, the following order was made at the time of issuance of notice in the special leave petition :

"Notice to issue to show cause why the impugned order of the High Court should not be set aside and the proceedings should not be remanded to the High Court for reconsideration of the main question whether on the facts and circumstances of the case leave to defend should have been granted to the petitioner.

There will be an interim stay of the decree for possession in the meantime.

Notice shall state that the matter will be disposed of finally at the SLP stage itself."

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Leave granted.

4. Shorn of all details, the facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal by special leave are that the respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition in 1990, seeking eviction of the appellant on various grounds, principal ground being bonafide requirement for personal use. The learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the petition on 3rd September, 1996. A little less than two years later, the respondent-landlord filed another petition for eviction in which notice was issued to the appellant who filed an application under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking leave to defend and contest the suit. It was mentioned in the application that the ground on which the second eviction petition had been filed was the same on which the first eviction petition had failed. The respondent-landlord opposed the application by urging certain other grounds too. On 18th January, 1999, the learned Additional Rent Controller refused to grant leave and allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord. A revision filed by appellant- tenant under proviso to Clause 8 of Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act in the High Court failed vide order dated 21.5.1999. It is this order of the High Court which has been put in issue before us.

5. After perusing the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it appears appropriate to us that the learned Additional Rent Controller was not justified in refusing leave to the appellant to defend the eviction petition. His application under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act ought to have been allowed and an opportunity be given to him to contest the claim of the respondent-landlord. The High Court fell into error in not dealing with the application of the tenant in its true perspective. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to set aside the order of the High Court as also that of the Additional Rent Controller, dated 18.1.1999 and we hereby do so. Allowing the application filed by the appellant under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act and granting him leave to defend the eviction petition, we remand the eviction petition to Additional Rent Controller for its disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and have their say.

6. The matter has been pending for a sufficiently long time. We consider it desirable that the Additional Rent Controller should deal with the matter expeditiously and as far as possible, dispose if of within one year from the date of this order.

7. The appeal succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.

Appeal allowed.