J L PAUL Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') challenging the order dated January 30, 1980 whereby alter refusing leave to contest, an order for eviction of the petitioner under Section 14A of the Act, was passed by the Controller, Delhi. The respondent/Landlord filed an application for eviction of the petitiones/tenant under section HA(1) of the Act. It is alleged that the petitioner is his tenant on the first floor of property at plot N-164, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 800.00 besides electricity and water charges and the premises are residential which were let on April 1, 1973. The respondent further alleges that he is in occupation of residential premises No. M-2766, Netaji, Ngr New Delhi alloted to him by the Central Govt., that he is required the General/Special orders dated September 9, 1975, December 26, 1975 and July 14, 1977 to vacate the said Government allotted premises or in default to pay the licence fee at the market rate, because he owns in his own name residential house at plot no. No. N-164, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi. He further states that originally the licence fee was 118.00 per month and the licence fee at half the market rate now being paid by him is Rs. 298.00 p.m. He further alleges that the ground floor of No. N-164, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi is in occupation of another tenant M/s Escorts at a monthly rent of Rs. 1100.00 and that he wants to shift to the first floor i.e. the premises in dispute in occupation of the petitioner.

(2.) The application was tried under Chapter III A of the Act. The petitioner filed an application for leave to contest. It is alleged that the eviction application under under Section 14A (1) of the Act is not maintainable as the Central Government has withdrawn the notification granting right to the Government employees to seek eviction of tenants under the said provisions of the Act, the eviction application does not disclose any cause of action, the respondent is not the owner of the premises, the eviction application is malafide as he ought to have filed the same against the occupant of the ground floor, that the premises were let for residential-cum-commercial purposes and that he is a dental surgoen having clinic along with his residence in the suit premises.

(3.) The respondent/landlord in reply submits that the Government never withdraw the notifications but only modified it; he is covered by the notification and is liable to pay licence fee at half the market rate; the eviction petition discloses cause of action; the petitioner is stopped from raising the defence of ownership as he has always accepted him as the owner of the premises; he has a choice to file application for eviction from the premises desired by him. It is denied that the premises were let to the petitioner for residential-cum-commercial purposes. He further alleges that the petitioner has got his clinic at 16A/17 Ajmal Khan Road, New Delhi.