Vijender Jain, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller on an eviction petition filed by the respondent- landlord/owner under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition.

( 2 ) MR. Sabharwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has contended that the respondent was not the owner within the meaning of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. He has contended that as a matter of fact when the premises were let out to the petitioner in the year 1981, the respondent was merely a licensee and he could not have created the tenancy. Mr. Sabharwal has gone to the extent of arguing that as a matter of fact he could not have parted with the possession in terms of the original licence granted by the Delhi Administration in favour of the respondent.

( 3 ) MR. Sabharwal further contended that the Delhi Administration further modified the policy and allotted such kind of premises to such licensees later on. What has been contended before me by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent for the purpose of getting such allotment, mis-represented to the Delhi Administration and after getting the letter of allotment the respondent was not entitled in terms of the policy of allotment to part with the possession of the premises in question. Mr. Sabharwal has further contended that there was a subsequent change of the policy by the Delhi Administration and according to that policy the occupant of such hire purchase premises were allotted the flats. He has contended that the petitioner filed the Civil Writ Petition No. 256/92 which was, however, dismissed on 18th November, 1987 but petitioner was permitted to make representation to the appropriate authority in terms of the policy. In terms of the order of the writ petition aforesaid, the petitioner made various representations to the Delhi Administration. As the petitioner has not heard anything he has filed another writ Petition No. 639/99 on 8th March, 1999. He has further contended that in view of the totality of circumstances, the contract was voidable at the instance of the Delhi Administration.

( 4 ) THE next ground of challenge of the petitioner is towards the finding returned by the Additional Rent Controller qua the bona fide requirement of the respondent. Mr. Sabharwal has contended that there was no evidence on record to show that the family of the respondent was to shift from the village to Delhi. He has further contended that at best it could be termed as a mere wish of the respondent to shift the family and on that score has assailed the order of the Additional Rent Controller. He has further stated that he made an oral request before the Additional Rent Controller for leading additional evidence which was declined. He has filed an application alongwith the Revision Petition for the same purpose.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Andley, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that there was enough material on record to show that the premises were allotted to the respondent by the Delhi Administration. There was no evidence on record that the allotment has been cancelled. He has further contended that even otherwise the petitioner has not disputed that he was inducted in the premises by the respondent in the year 1981. Mr. Andley has further contended that in view of the stand taken by the petitioner in the written statement which has not controverted the stand of the respondent that there was no other alternative accommodation available to the respondent in Delhi, the number of family members having not been disputed, there was no further requirement of law which was to be met by the respondent to support his bona fides. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondent has cited Sushil Kanta Chakravarty vs. Rajeshwar Kumar 1999 (49) DRJ, Smt. Parvati Devi Vs. Mahindra Singh 1996 (1) AD (Delhi) 819. I have given my careful consid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document