BAL KRISHAN KHANNA Vs. RAVI KANTA MADHOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under section 25(B)(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 has been filed by a tenant who has been unsuccessful in getting the leave to contest the eviction petition filed by his landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement of the leased premises.

(2.) THE petitioner's application for leave to contest the eviction petition had been rejected by the learned Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 02.12.2009 and an eviction order had been passed against him. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-tenant had invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by filing a revision petition. THE petitioner-tenant had raised two points before this Court. First was that there was an understanding between him and the deceased father-in-law of the respondent herein that he could remain in occupation so long as he wanted to live during his lifetime. Oral understanding in that regard between him and the father-in-law of the respondent herein was pleaded by the petitioner herein in his leave application. THE other point urged before this Court was that two years before the filing of the eviction case the respondent-landlady had let out an area of 155 sq.yds. on the ground floor to another tenant. This Court after rejecting the first of these two pleas urged on behalf of the petitioner-tenant remanded back the matter to the trial Court for giving its findings on the second point taken by the tenant in his leave application to the effect that since the respondent-landlady had two years before the filing of present eviction case let out 155 sq. yds. area to another tenant her requirement of the premises in occupation of the petitioner-tenant could not be said to be bona fide. THE remand order was passed since the trial Court had not dealt with this plea of the petitioner-tenant in its order dated 05/12/09. THE learned trial Court accordingly passed a fresh order on 07/03/11 after hearing the parties. THE relevant observations in this short order are re-produced:-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent-landlady simply supported the decision taken by the trial Court after remand and contended that letting out of some portion in the main house to another tenant two years ago was irrelevant for considering the leave to defend application of the present petitioner-tenant and that circumstance has been rightly been not used in favour of the tenant. Regarding the same Judge who has passed the present order in favour of the landlady passing an order in favour of another tenant of another shop in the same house a month before the passing of the present order after remand learned counsel for the respondent-landlady submitted that the other order is liable to be challenged by the landlady and in any event the petitioner herein cannot derive any benefit from the other tenant getting the leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the landlady on same grounds on which eviction of the petitioner is being sought.