PARTAP RAI KALRA Vs. OM PRAKASH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is directed .against the impugned Judgement of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 1/3/2000 passed in respect of a petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, i.e, for the bona fide requirement of the landlord/owne for his residence.

(2.) The premises were let to the tenant by the owner by means of a Rent Agreement dated 1/4/1989. In terms of that Deed the rent was settled at Rs.2000.00 per month, and the leting was for residential purposes only. There is also a recital to the effect that Shri Om Prakash Sharma (landlord ) is also the owner of the premises. In View of the Rent Agreement the tenant is. estopped and precluded from disputing the title, since Shirr Om Prakash Sharma has put him in possession of the demised premises. Contrary to the Lease .Deed the tenant has asserted that the rent of the premises is Rs. 1500.00 per .month and that the premises had been let to him for composite purposes. On these aspects the Additional Rent Controller has held against the tenant, and in my view rightly so. In any event no jurisdictional error can be seen to have arisen as would Justify the interference of-this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

(3.) In paragraph 2 of the Revision Petition the tenant has stated-"That family of the Respondent consists of himself and his wife alone. That even if the son, his wife and a child are included-in the family even then the accommodation available with the Petitioner is more than sufficient." This statement has been shown to be contrary to the averments contained in the application seeking 'leave to defend' where the tenant has ''stated that "the family of the Petitioner consists of only Petitioner himself, his wife , his son, son's, wife and school going daughter while the Petitioner is in occupation and possession of four living rooms and drawing-cum-dirting room beside w,c., bathroom, store etc. " This is not the only occasion when the tenant has chosen .to make. statement clearly conflicting with and contradictory of each other.. After 'leave to contest' was granted, a written Statement had been filed by the tenant. In his examination, the tenant has gone to the extent of deposing that he had not read the averments made in the written Statement and had thereby tried to resile from the admission and averments made therein. In these circumstances it may have been open to the Additional Rent Controller to discount and refuse to consider the testimony of the tenant since according to the tenant himself the written Statement ought not to be given any credence or consideration. If a party retracts his pleadings, he forfeits his right to lead evidence for the reason that evidence cannot be lead beyond or dehors pleadings. The Additional Rent Controller, however has considered the testimony and thereafter returned the favourable finding both. on the bona fide need of the owner as well as the non-sufficiency of accommodation availabl'e to him. I am satisfied that no error has been committed by the Additional Rent Controller in holding that the family of the landlord comprised of himself, his wife, the son and daughter-in-law and the grand child. I can see no error in the Rent Controller having assessed the need of the landlord to be as follows :