UMESH VERMA Vs. JAIDEVIBHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The correctness of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 379 of 1997 is questioned in this appeal. The High Court dismissed the revision application filed by the landlord against the order passed by the Rent Controller granting leave to the respondents to defend the eviction petition.

(2.) The appellant is the owner of the premises which are now in possession of the respondents. As he was to retire from Central Government service on 30-11-96 he filed an eviction petition against both the respondents, in the Court of the Rent Controller, Delhi, under Sections 14(1)(e) and 14C of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground that he requires the premises bona fide for his residence. In his petition he has stated that Respondent No. 1, Jai Devi is his tenant but as Respondent No. 2, her husband, has been claiming that he and not his wife is the tenant of the premises the eviction petition is filed against both of them to avoid any technical objection. Both the respondents appeared before the Rent Controller and filed separate applications for leave to defend. They have raised a dispute that Respondent No. 2 is the tenant and not Respondent No. 1. They have also raised a dispute that the premises are a part of the joint family property, and, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner alone is not maintainable and as the petitioner has been residing in the remaining part of the premises with his brothers his claim that he requires the premises for his residence is not bona fide. The Rent Controller believed that there was a partition amongst the brothers and the appellant is since then the owner of the premises. Thus, he held that, the first condition of Section 14C is satisfied. As it was not disputed that the petitioner was a Central Government employee and that he was about to retire when he filed the petition, the Rent Controller held that the second ingredient of Section 14C is also satisfied. But taking the view that there is a substantial dispute between the appellant and the respondents as regards the relationship of landlord and tenant, the third ingredient of Section 14C, the respondents are entitled to leave, not only under Section 14(1)(e) but also under Section 14C of the Act. The Rent Controller, therefore, granted leave to both the respondents to defend the eviction petition.

(3.) Aggrieved by that order the appellant filed a revision petition to the High Court under Section 25B of the Act. The High Court held that if the ground pleaded by the respondents is accepted then that would entail dismissal of petition under Section 14C for the reason that if the Respondent No. 2, is proved to be the tenant of the premises then the petition against respondent No. 1 would fail and it would also fail against Respondent No. 2, as in the petition only Respondent No. 1 is stated to be the tenant. Taking this view the High Court dismissed the revision application.