Facts of the Case
The matter arises from an eviction petition filed under Section
14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 concerning a property situated
at Nizamuddin West, New Delhi. The respondents (landlords) initiated eviction
proceedings against the petitioner (tenant), Ms. Sharmila Banerjee Livingston.
During the proceedings:
- The
petitioner filed an affidavit by way of evidence.
- The
Trial Court directed that the affidavit be taken off record and granted
liberty to file a fresh affidavit.
- Additionally, the petitioner sought amendment of her written statement to rely upon an Agreement to Sell dated 19 October 1994, which had been relied upon by the respondents in a separate declaration suit.
Issues Involved
- Whether
amendment of written statement should be allowed to incorporate reliance
on an agreement already part of another judicial record.
- Whether
the petitioner can introduce documents from another suit without formally
amending pleadings.
- Scope
and limitation of filing a fresh affidavit by way of evidence under
procedural law.
- Whether respondents are entitled to rebuttal evidence when additional judicial records are exhibited.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The
petitioner contended that the respondents themselves relied upon the Agreement
to Sell dated 19 October 1994 in another suit.
- Therefore,
she sought permission to:
- Amend
her written statement, and
- Rely upon and incorporate the said document into the present eviction proceedings.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The
respondents did not dispute that the said agreement had been produced in
another suit.
- They
expressed no objection to the document being exhibited in the
present proceedings.
- However, they opposed unnecessary amendment of pleadings.
Court’s Findings / Order
The Delhi High Court passed a balanced procedural order:
1. On Amendment of Written Statement
- The
Court declined the amendment request.
- However,
it permitted the petitioner to:
- Summon
the judicial record of the earlier suit
- Exhibit
relevant pleadings and documents from that record
Thus, reliance on documents was allowed without formal amendment.
2. On Fresh Affidavit by Way of Evidence
- The
Court upheld the Trial Court’s direction permitting a fresh affidavit.
- It
clarified:
- The
affidavit must be restricted to existing pleadings and documents on
record
- No new averments regarding summoned judicial records are permitted
3. On Use of Judicial Record from Another Case
- Documents
from another case may be exhibited
- However:
- They
cannot be used to introduce new pleadings
- Only evidentiary value is permitted
4. On Rebuttal Evidence
- Since
new documents are being introduced via judicial record:
- The respondents were granted the right to lead rebuttal evidence after petitioner’s evidence concludes
5. Direction for Expeditious Disposal
- Considering the age of the matter, the Trial Court was directed to expedite disposal of the eviction petition
Important Clarifications
- Amendment
of pleadings is not mandatory when documents can be brought through
judicial record.
- Affidavit
evidence must strictly conform to existing pleadings.
- Judicial
records from other proceedings can be exhibited, but cannot expand
pleadings.
- Right to rebuttal evidence is preserved where procedural fairness demands.
Sections Involved
- Section
14(1)(e), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Eviction on bona
fide requirement
- Order XIX Rule 3, CPC – Affidavit evidence and its scope
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.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment