Sultan Singh, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Section 25b of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act ) is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Controller dated 21st April, 1980 refusing the petitioner-tenant leave to defend and passing an order of eviction against him. A portion of the premises on the first floor of the property at 41, National Park, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi was let to the petitioner on 1st December, 1967 on a monthly rent at Rs. 215. 00. The respondent filed the eviction application under Section 14 (l) (e) read with Sections 25a and 25b of the Act on 11th October, 1979 alleging that he was owner of the premises in dispute, that he required the premises for the residence of himself and for members of his family dependent upon him and that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. He further pleaded that his family consisted of himself and five other members, and that be was in cupation of only two rooms on the first floor. It is pertinent to note that there is no allegation in any portion of the eviction application that the premises were let for residential purposes. The petitioner- tenant on 20th November, 1979 filed an application for leave to defend. He alleges that the respondent-landlord has been in the habit of filing eviction applications against his tenants on the ground of alleged fictitious ground of bona fide and after getting the eviction order, he has been letting out the premises on higher rents. He alleges that the entire property consists of five portions, two on the ground floor, two on the first floor and a barsati on the second floor, that one portion of the ground floor was let out about 16 months prior to the institution of the present eviction application. In other words, it is alleged that the ground floor portion was let out in June, 1978. He then contends that the respondent-landlord was in occupation of barsati floor, that he filed an eviction petition against Brij Mohan, a tenant of a portion on the first floor, on the alleged ground of bona fide requirement wherein the respondent had pleaded that he desired to occupy the portion on the first floor as well as continue to occupy the barsati floor already in his possession. The portion of the first floor premises in occupation of Brij Mohan was vacated and occupied by the respondent-landlord but in July, 1979 he let out the barsati floor premises to C. Padmanabhan, Senior Engineer B. H. E. L. at an exorbitant rent of Rs. 650. 00 per month. The petitioner further alleges that the respondent has always been demanding enhancement of rent, that the accommodation with the respondent has been sufficient for his requirement. There are various other allegations in the application for leave to defend and it is not necessary to reproduce all of them. The respondent in reply submitted that the ground floor portion was not suitable for his occupation and that he required the suit premises on the first floor for his occupation as the same was adjacent to the premises already in his occupation. As regards the barsati floor it is alleged that the same was not suitable for him. He denied the other allegations of the petitioner-tenant. The allegations contained in the application for leave to defend and the reply filed by the respondent leads one to assume that the respondent got the first floor portion vacated and occupied the same and that he let out the barsati floor in July, 1979 and filed the present eviction application in October, 1979 although he had undertaken in the eviction petition against the tenant Brij Mohan on the first floor that he would retain the barsati floor with him. Further the respondent let out near about June 1978 the portion on the ground floor. These two acts appear to be sufficient at this stage for the grant of leave to defend to the petitioner-tenant. The question for decision is Whether the requirement of the respondent-landlord i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document