Facts of the Case

The present matter arises from an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in respect of a property situated at Ground Floor, C-17, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi. The respondents (landlords) initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner (tenant).

During the course of proceedings:

  • The petitioner filed an affidavit by way of evidence, which was directed to be taken off record by the Trial Court, granting liberty to file a fresh affidavit.
  • The petitioner sought to amend her written statement to incorporate reliance on an agreement to sell dated 19 October 1994, which had been relied upon by the respondents in a separate suit.

Two petitions were filed before the High Court challenging these procedural aspects.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to amend the written statement to incorporate reliance on an agreement to sell already forming part of another judicial record.
  2. Whether the Trial Court was justified in directing the petitioner to file a fresh affidavit by way of evidence.
  3. What is the permissible scope of evidence when documents are summoned from another judicial proceeding.
  4. Whether respondents should be allowed to lead rebuttal evidence after introduction of such documents.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner contended that the respondents themselves had relied upon the agreement to sell dated 19 October 1994 in another suit.
  • Therefore, the petitioner should be permitted to amend her written statement to incorporate and rely upon the said document.
  • It was further argued that reliance on the document was necessary for proper adjudication of the eviction dispute.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The respondents did not dispute that the agreement to sell had been produced in a prior suit.
  • However, they opposed the amendment of the written statement.
  • They submitted that the petitioner could rely on the document by summoning the judicial record instead of amending pleadings.

Court’s Findings / Order

The Delhi High Court passed a balanced order addressing both petitions:

On Amendment of Written Statement (CM(M) 105/2019)

  • The Court declined the amendment of the written statement.
  • However, it permitted the petitioner to summon the judicial record of the earlier suit to exhibit relevant documents and pleadings.
  • Thus, procedural flexibility was granted without allowing formal amendment.

On Filing Fresh Affidavit (CM(M) 502/2019)

  • The Court upheld the Trial Court’s order allowing filing of a fresh affidavit.
  • It directed that:
    • The affidavit must be confined to pleadings and documents already on record.
    • Documents from the summoned judicial record can only be exhibited, not argued within the affidavit.

On Rebuttal Evidence

  • The Court allowed respondents to lead rebuttal evidence, if necessary, after conclusion of petitioner’s evidence due to introduction of new documents.

Additional Direction

  • The Trial Court was directed to expeditiously dispose of the eviction petition considering its age.

Important Clarification

  • Summoned judicial records can be exhibited as evidence, but cannot be used to introduce new pleadings indirectly.
  • Affidavit evidence must remain strictly within the scope of pleadings.
  • Amendment of pleadings is not necessary where procedural mechanisms (like summoning records) sufficiently address evidentiary requirements.

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2019:DHC:7997/PMS20112019CMM1052019_152845.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.