RANJIT SINGH Vs. INEZ RICHARDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is a concurrent finding against the Landlord/Petitioner by the Rent Controller as well as by the Rent Control Tribunal in respect of the claim for eviction under Section 14(l)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control-Act which reads as follows:

(2.) The averments before the Rent Controller are that the Respondents locked up the suit premises on 29/6/1992 and went abroad and that she had not come back till the filing of the Petition on 4/1/1993. It has been further averred that the Respondent was living alone in the suit premises as her husband has died and her children was settled abroad even prior to the letting. In my opinion, these averments are vital to the case. The defence of the Tenant/Respondent is that she frequently goes abroad. In respect of the period mentioned she has admitted that she had left for Abu Dhabi on 28/6/1992 and returned to Delhi in the first week of October, 1992. After staying for 2-3 days, she left for Lucknow and she returned in the end of November, 1992. In her Statement, she has proved the Report which had been lodged by her with the Assistant Commissioner of Police. She has also produced Smt. Alise, who has, inter alia, deposed that the Respondent visited her on 3/10/1992 and that she left for Lucknow on 5/10/1992 and returned in the end of November, 1992. This testimony has not even been challenged by way of cross-examination.The Respondent/Tenant has also produced a witness from the MTNL to show that she has visited the said office in connection with the malfunctioning of her telephone.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has strongly urged that the reasons which had apparently weighed in minds of the Rent Controller and the Rent Tribunal are not significant enough to warrant the dismissal of the eviction petition. In his submission, too much importance has been given to the witness from the MTNL.