MADAN LAL LAMBA Vs. TARLOK SINGH SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 258(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act for short) by Madan Lal Lamba, tenant, for setting aside a judgement dated 18.4.1990 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Delhi, by which he granted an eviction order against him in favour of the respondent landlord under Section 14-C(2) of the Act in respect of suit premises, that is, the ground floor of property No. B-1/244, Janakpuri, New Delhi. The learned Rent Controller also directed that the order shall not be executable till the expiry of two months from the date of the order.

(2.) The facts are that the landlord had let out the suit premises to the petitioner herein in March, 1981 for residential purposes. The respondent was an employee of the Central Government in Ministry of Defence working as office Superintendent in the office of Air Force Central Accounts Subroto Park, Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi and was to retire with effect from 31.3.1990 and that he required the suit premises for his own residence. The petition was filed on 3rd April, 1989, that is, within one year of retirement.

(3.) On putting in appearance the petitioner filed an application for leave to defend the suit duly supported by his affidavit. He stated in the affidavit that the respondent had constructed a Hying apartment at the first floor of the suit premises comprising of a big drawing-cum-dining room, bedroom, lobby, balcony, kitchen, bath room etc. and had also completed a Barsati somewhere in 1984. This he had done after selling his house in Bagh Kare Khan, Delhi. He shifted to the newly constructed premises alongwith his wife, married son, daughter-in-law and one grand son and that accommodation was sufficient for him and the members of his family. The object of the respondent in getting the suit premises vacated was simply to relet it at a higher rent. He also stated that the petitioner had also filed another eviction petition against him under Sec. 14(l)(e) of the Act. Another plea taken up. by him was that since the respondent was not residing in the Govt. allotted accommodation, the petition under Section 14-C(2) of the Act was not maintainable.