Leave to defend requires specific triable facts; residential use is not lost merely because part of premises serves office work

Leave to defend under section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was unavailable because the tenant's affidavit did not disclose specific facts creating a triable issue on landlord-tenant relationship; a bare denial and reliance on an unregistered lease deed were insufficient, while rent receipts, correspondence, and prior notices supported the landlord's case. The termination notice was held valid despite a reference that the tenancy should not become heritable, so the eviction petition was not defective for non-joinder of heirs. A premises did not lose its residential character merely because part of it was used for office work, so the statutory eviction ground under section 14-A(1) remained available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tenant had disclosed facts warranting leave to defend under section 25-B(5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the plea that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties. (ii) Whether the notice terminating the contractual tenancy was defective so as to leave the tenancy heritable and make the eviction petition bad for non-joinder of other heirs. (iii) Whether the premises, if let for office-cum-residential use, could still support eviction under section 14-A(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Issue (i): Whether the tenant had disclosed facts warranting leave to defend under section 25-B(5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the plea that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties.

Analysis: Leave to defend under section 25-B(5) is available only when the affidavit discloses specific facts which, if proved, would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for possession. The tenant's pleadings did not set out sufficient material beyond a bare denial, and the document relied upon by her was an unregistered lease deed which could not be used to create or prove title. The correspondence, rent receipts, counterfoils, and the earlier notice issued in the respondent's name through his general attorney supported the respondent's case that he was treated as landlord throughout. The revisional court declined to reappraise the matter as if in a full trial, and found no cogent basis to infer a triable issue.

Conclusion: The plea of absence of landlord-tenant relationship did not justify grant of leave to defend and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice terminating the contractual tenancy was defective so as to leave the tenancy heritable and make the eviction petition bad for non-joinder of other heirs.

Analysis: The notice expressly terminated the tenancy with effect from a specified date and complied with the requirements of notice to quit. The additional statement that the tenancy should not become heritable did not dilute the termination. Once the contractual tenancy was validly terminated, the tenant's status became statutory and the tenancy devolved only in the manner recognised by the rent law. On that footing, the petition was not bad for non-joinder of other heirs.

Conclusion: The notice was valid and the objection based on non-joinder failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the premises, if let for office-cum-residential use, could still support eviction under section 14-A(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Analysis: For section 14-A(1), the relevant requirement is that the accommodation be residential in character and capable of being used as a residence. A partial use for office work does not convert a residential accommodation into a non-residential one. The record showed that the premises formed part of a residential house and were let as residential accommodation. The plea that office use had been made of part of the premises therefore did not defeat the statutory ground.

Conclusion: The premises continued to be residential accommodation and the eviction ground remained available to the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court found no reason to interfere with the order refusing leave to defend and sustaining eviction, and the tenant's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, leave to defend is warranted only when the tenant's affidavit discloses specific, credible facts that would defeat the landlord's claim; a bare denial or reliance on an inadmissible document does not raise a triable issue, and a residential premises does not lose that character merely because part of it is used for office purposes.

---