J K INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. M M LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the tenant under Section 25B 8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the order dated November 25, 1980 of the Additional Controller refusing him leave to contest the eviction application and passing an order of eviction.

(2.) The respondent is owner landlord of a bungalow No. C-22, West End Colony. Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi. He let out the ground floor with motor garage and servant quarter of the said property to the petitioner. on a monthly rent of Rs. 2000.00 with effect from January 1, 1975 for a period of two years with option to extend for another two terms of one year each. The respondent on January 8, 1980 filed the eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act for its eviction. The respondent alleges that he was in Government (Army) service, living at F-1/10, (first floor) Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi, consisting of the living room, dining room, kitchen, three bed rooms with attached bath rooms, Verandah, servant's accommodation, W.C-cum-bathroom, terrace and a parking place for motor car, that for personal reasons he sought premature retirement and retired from Army service with effect from July 1, 1975. He also alleges that in ordinary course he would have retired on July 31, 1976 and was eligible for extension of service for a period of another three years and that on retirement he was to vacate government accommodation. He claims eviction of the petitioner alleging that he is the owner of the premises, which were let for residence, that he requires the same as residence for himself and members of his family dependent upon him and that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. He states that his family consists of his wife, two grown-up sons aged 22 years and 16 years and one married daughter, who visits him from time to time and stays with her parents and that the elder son is an Articled Clerk in the firm of Chartered Accountants, and the younger son is a student in school, who need independent rooms. The respondent further alleges that after retirement he along with his family shifted to D-35, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi, a house belonging to his brother Madan Mohan Lal and his sister Smt. Prem Lal and that his brother and sister along with two other family members have been living at D-35, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi. He further alleges that the house at D-35 is a small house built on a plot of land measuring 200 square yards, that he was living there at sufferance and has no legal right to live there and even otherwise there is not enough accommodation and the owners of D-35 want more accommodation for themselves. The respondent pleads that he sent a letter dated November 28, 1978 to the petitioner company requiring it to vacate and the company vide letter dated January 1, 1979 informed that it would vacate the same as soon as another suitable accommodation for the residence of its Executive Director became available. The petition was tried under the summary procedure contained in chapter III-A of the Act. The petitioner filed an application for leave to contest the eviction application. The Additional Controller finding that the affidavit seeking leave to contest did not disclose any fact which would non-suit the landlord, dismissed its application and passed the order of eviction. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is entitled to leave to defend. Section 14(l)(e) of the Act reads as under :