The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with a rent controller’s order allowing a tenant to contest an eviction plea, holding that several serious factual disputes needed a full trial before any eviction could be ordered. The court dismissed a revision petition filed by a landlord who had challenged the grant of “leave to defend” in the case.
The decision came from Justice Saurabh Banerjee, who agreed that the tenant had raised genuine triable issues on the very identity of the tenant, the landlord’s claimed personal need, and the availability of alternative properties.
The case arose from an eviction petition filed by Smt. Meenu Chaurasia, who sought possession of a shop-cum-godown in Old Delhi under the Delhi Rent Control Act. She claimed the premises were required for starting a small business for her son, who had allegedly lost his job during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Rejects Lapse Claim in 1960s Land Acquisition, Says Compensation Was Properly Deposited
However, the High Court found no reason to disturb the earlier order of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), which had permitted the tenant to defend the eviction case in a full trial.
According to the landlord, the property at Gali Bal Mukund, Bazar Sita Ram was purchased by her through a registered sale deed in 2012. She asserted that after the purchase, Ankit Gupta, the respondent, became her tenant and paid rent directly to her.
The landlord further stated that she was a widow with health issues and had no other suitable commercial space in Delhi. On this basis, she claimed a bona fide requirement of the premises for her son’s livelihood.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Rejects Lapse Claim in 1960s Land Acquisition, Says Compensation Was Properly Deposited
The tenant, however, disputed these claims from the outset.
Before the Rent Controller, the tenant argued that the eviction petition itself was misdirected, as the actual tenant was not an individual but a partnership firm, M/s Bishambhar Nath Hem Chand. He also alleged that the landlord had concealed the existence of other vacant shops owned by her in Delhi.
In January 2024, the ARC accepted that these issues could not be brushed aside and granted the tenant leave to defend, meaning the eviction case would proceed to trial.
Challenging this, the landlord approached the High Court, arguing that no real triable issue existed and that eviction should have been ordered straightaway.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee closely examined the record and found contradictions in the landlord’s own stand. The judge noted that documents produced by the landlord, including rent receipts, appeared to show that the partnership firm itself was the tenant, contrary to her claim that only an individual tenant existed.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in 2020 Transgender Murder Case, Cites Eyewitness Testimony
The court observed that this confusion “goes to the root of the matter” and clearly justified a full trial. It also took note of the tenant’s claim that the landlord owned four vacant shops at another property, a contention that had not been specifically denied.
On the landlord’s reliance on Supreme Court judgments to argue that no triable issue arose, the court found such reliance misplaced, stating that the factual dispute over the identity of the tenant itself required adjudication.
Holding that the case did not warrant interference in its revisionary jurisdiction, the Delhi High Court dismissed the landlord’s petition. The court confirmed that the tenant was entitled to contest the eviction case through evidence and trial.
The revision petition, along with all pending applications, was dismissed without any order on costs, bringing the High Court proceedings to a close.
Case Title: Smt. Meenu Chaurasia v. Shri Ankit Gupta
Case Number: RC.REV. 175/2024 (with CM APPL. 37667/2024)
Court: High Court of Delhi
Judge: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
