KASTURI LAL NAND RAJ Vs. BAKSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent on the first floor of premises No. B-184, Double Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The respondent filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in his occupation claiming that he needed the said premises for occupation of himself and members of his family dependent upon him. The respondent's case, therefore, was one which fell within the ambit of clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. As required by the provisions of section 25 B of the said Act, the petition filed by the respondent was dealt with under the said section. Summonses were issued to the petitioner of the petition filed by the respondent in the Form specified in the Third Schedule of the said Act. Consequently the petitioner moved an application dated 9th May, 1979, supported by an affidavit setting out the grounds on which he wanted to contest the eviction petition and praying that he be granted leave to defend the same. The respondent filed a reply to the application moved by the petitioner. Following the procedure prescribed by section 25 B of the Act, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, decided the matter by his impugned order declining to grant leave to the petitioner to defend the eviction petition and ordering his eviction from the premises in his occupation. The statutory period of six months was given to the petitioner to vacate the premises and it was ordered that the order of eviction would not be executed before the expiry of 6 months from the date of the order. The petitioner has filed the present revision. petition contesting the decision to the effect that leave to defend eviction has been declined to him.

(2.) The Additional Rent Controller has based his decision on the principle of law enunciated by this court in numerous decisions. He has cited the same in his order. On merits, examining the pleadings, he has come to the conclusion that the pleas raised by the petitioner were not bona fide or tenable on the face of it. This is what the petitioner challenges by the revision petition filed in this court.

(3.) There is no dispute regarding what law is applicable. The short question is whether the Additional Rent Controller has presumed facts as proved or not proved when that was not the stage at which it could be done.