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 bunglow 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. 2,000.00, 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(1) (e) read with Section 25B of the Act for its eviction. The respondent alleges that he was in Government (Army) service, living at F-l/10, (first floor) Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi, consisting of the living room, dinning room, kitchen, three bed rooms with attached bath rooms. Verandah, servant's accomodation, W.C.-cum-bath room, 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, 3975. 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 accomodation. 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 accomodation. 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 alongwith 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 alongwith 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 accomodation and the owners of D-35 want more accomodation 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 accomodation 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(1)(c) of the Act reads as under : "S. 1,4(1) : Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely : (a) * * * * * (b) * * * * * (c) * * * * * (d) * * * * * (e) that the premises let for residential purposes required are bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accomodation; Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, "premises let for residential purposes" include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes". In order to obtain an order for recovery of possession on the ground of bona fide requirement a landlord has to prove the following ingredients : (1) that he is the owner-landlord of the premises; (2) that the premises were let for residential purposes; (3) that the premises are bona fide required by him for occupation as residence for himself or for members of his family dependent upon him; (4) that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accomodation.