JAGATJIT INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. RAJIV GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 25B(S) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on behalf of the tenant challenging the order of eviction dated 4/8/1978 passed by the Additional Controller in favour of the respondent-landlord. The respondent on 21/1/1977 filed an eviction petition under Section l4(1)(e) of the Act alleging that he is the owner of the suit property at B-16 Greater Kailash, New Delhi, that the property was let to the petitioner for residential parposes, that he bonafide requires the premises as a residence for himself, his wife and his two children dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. he further says that he has been residing with his father at 30,Chatra Marg,Delhi in a single room measuring 17' x 15': 9" He is the Zonal Manager ofu public limited company, namely. Motor & General Finance Limited and he is also Director of other public limited companies drawing a salary of Rs. 33.00. This petition was tried under Section 25B of the Act. The tenant was granted leave to contest and after recording evidence the Additional Controller held that the respondent-landlord was entitled to an order for recovery of possession from the petitioner-tenant. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the eviction order passed by the Controller is not in accordance with law and therefore the same is liable to be set aside by this court in exercise of revisioral powers under Section 25B(8) of the Act. The petitioner raises the following questions : 1. That the eviction notice dated 17/9/1976 Ex. AW2/5 was served upon the petitioner on 20/9/1976 which purported to terminate his tenancy on the expiry of 31/10/1976. The petitioner says that in terms of the memo of lease dated 6/2/1970 the contractual tenancy was liable to be terminated only by two months notice ;

(2.) That the respondent-landlord has reasonably suitable residential accommodation at 30, Chatra Marg, Delhi as he has been residing with his father and that he docs not bonafide require the suit premises for the residence of himself or any member of his family ;

(3.) That the premises in suit were let to the petitioner for residence- cum-commercial purposes ; and