The purpose of letting under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act is to be determined as on the date when the premises were let.

( 1 ) THIS revision under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (for short the Act ) challenges the judgment and order of the Additional Controller dt. 16th Jan. 1982 dismissing the petitioner s application for eviction of the respondent.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that on l2th Oct. 1978 the petitioners filed an applition for eviction on the ground mentioned in S. 14 (l) (e) of the Act. They have alleged that the respondent has been their tenant in a portion on ground floor of Property No. 6404/2, Block 7b (popularly known as Block No. 7) Gali No. 4, Ward No. XVI. Dey Nagor. Karol Bagh. New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rupees 400. 00 excluding water and electricity charges since 21st August. 1973 vide a rent note executed by him. that petitioner No. 1 is the owner-landlord while petitioner No. 2 is also the landlady of the premises which were let for residential purposes, that the same are required bona fide by them for occupation as residence for themselves and family members dependent upon them. that they have no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It has also been alleged that the family of petitioner No. 1 comprises of himself, his wife (petitioner No. 2) five daughters out of which two are married having children. three sons of marriageable age. that the married daughters visit the petitioners and they have only first floor and mezzanine floor of the said property which is insufficient for their requirements. that petitioner No. 1 is employed as C. P. W. D. Engineer drawing Rs. 1540. 00 per month and his sons are also employed, that the respondent with his family was residing in the premises and had acquired vacant possession of premises No. 131, Main Market. Shanker Road, New Rajinder Nagar. New Delhi where he had removed all his household goods and his family had shifted there in Aug. 1978. that his mother alone is in occupation of the suit premises. They also allege that the father of the petitioner No. 1 had taken the plot on lease from the Delhi Improvement Trust, that he constructed a house and in a family partition the suit property had fallen to the share of petitioner No. 1.

( 3 ) THE respondent under S. 25-B (4) of the Act made an application for leave to contest but it was dismissed by the Additional Controller. On revision this Court in C. R. NO. 94 of 1979 by judgment dt. 7th August. 1979* granted leave to the respondent to contest the eviction application.

( 4 ) THE respondent in his written statement dt. 4th September, 1979 has pleaded that the premises were let both for residential and commercial purposes and have been used as such from the commencement of the tenancy, that he was a tenant on the first floorat "reported in (1979) 16 Delhi LT 142. Rs. 330. 00 per month, and later on he became a tenant on the ground floor at Rs. 400. 00 per month, that the tenancy was contracted through a property broker, that the buildings in the area where the suit property is situated are being used both for residential and commercial purpose that (he rent note dt. 21st August. 1973 was a forged document. that a stamp paper for the execution of a rent note with respect to premises on first floor was purchased by him on 21st June. 1973. that. he put his signatures on the blank stamp paper. It has been further pleaded that the petitioners are in possession of first floor and second floor of the suit property. and even if they are not in possession of the second floor, the accommodation on first floor is sufficient for them, that the petitioners arc not owners, that petitioner No. 2 alone ,is his landlady that their family members arc not dependent upon them. that all five daughters have been married and were living with their husbands. The other pleas raised in the written statement are now not in dispute.

( 5 ) IN the replication the petitioners have pleaded that the respondent was tenant on first floor for a period of two months from 21st June. 1973 with respect to which no rent note was e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document