SURJIT SINGH KAIRA Vs. V N CHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition, filed under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter called the Act, is directed against the order of eviction dated March 2, 1989, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are as under : Premises No. W-2, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi, were let out to petitioner by respondent, on May 15, 1969, on the monthly rent of Rs. 77 V-, exclusive of water and electricity charges. The premises consists of three bed rooms with attached bath and latrine, store, kitchen, drawing and dining room, courtyard etc. By the Amending Act, 57 of 1988, some more classes of landlords were carved out, from the classes of general landlords. Section 14-B to Section 14-D are the provisions, which were added in the Act, so as to give to classified landlords, certain special rights, to recover immediate possession of the premises, let out by them, if they were required for their own residence. Respondent, who was holding a rank of Brigadier in the Indian Armed Forces, filed an application, for eviction of his tenant, petitioner herein, from the aforesaid premises, under sub-Section (2) of Section 14-B read with Section 20-B of the Act, as amended by the Amending Act of 1988, on the ground, that he was going to retire on June 30, 1989, and that the premises, which were let out by him, were required for his own residence, after his retirement and also for the residence of other members of his family. Petitioner filed an application, under Section 25-B(4)(5) of the Act, for leave to contest the eviction petition. Petitioner filed affidavits, in support of the application, thereby, seeking leave to defend the eviction, inter-alia, on the grounds that provisions of Section 14-B of the Act, were unconstitutional, ultra vires; the premises had been let out for commercial, as well as, residential purposes, respondent was not the owner of the property in dispute, responden- was not in the bonafide need of the premises in dispute, that respont dent was not going to retire etc.

(3.) All the. allegations, made in the application, were controverted by the respondent/landlord.