RAJ KUMAR AVASTHI Vs. URMILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant has come to this Court under Section 25-B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) aggrieved by an order dated 1.10.2001 passed by learned ARC, Delhi in Eviction Case No.E-196/2000 dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to defend and ordering his eviction from the premises in question under Section 14 D read with Section 25-B of the Act.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this petition,briefly stated, are that the respondent landlady, a widow, had filed a petition under Section 14-D read with Section 25-B of the Act against the petitioner praying for eviction on the ground that she was in bonafide need of the premises In question shown in Red in the plan attached with the petition. She claimed that the said premise were required by her for her own residence and the residence of her family members in as much as the present accommodation with her at the first floor was not sufficient to accommodate her, her family members and visitors. She was having four married sons, out of whom one was living with her but the second son also wanted to live with her as he was living in a rented accommodation. She claimed that she had no other alternative residential accommodation in Delhi.

(3.) The petitioner filed an application for leave to defend which was supported by an affidavit. He pleaded that the respondent-landlady was not entitled to an eviction order as the premises were let out by her when she was already a widows that the accommodation available to her on the first floor was sufficient for accommodating her and her one married son Surender Kumar; that the other sons were living separately and were not interested in living with her; that she had other residential properties at Harsh Vihar and Bank Colony; that she merely wanted to let out the premises in question on a higher rent after evicting the petitioner therefrom and as such her need was not bonafide. The respondent landlady filed a reply alongwith an affidavit controverting the pleas raised by the petitioner. The learned ARC vide impugned orders dated 1.10.2001 came to the conclusion that the petitioner-tenant had failed to raise any triable issue and as such refused to grant leave to defend to him. The application for leave to defend was dismissed and the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlady was allowed.