S P KAPOOR Vs. KAMAL MAHAVIR PRASAD MURARKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This petition under Section 25-B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" only) is directed against an order dated 3rd September, 2001, passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by which the petitioner's application for leave to defend under Section 25-B (4) of the Act was dismissed and respondents' eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act was allowed.

(2.) . I have heard Sh.L.R.Gupta, Sr.Advocate for the petitioner and Sh.V.K.Makhija, Sr.Advocate for the respondents. I have gone through the Trial Court records. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated are, that the respondent No.1, claiming to be the owner-landlord of property No.D-281, Defence Colony, New Delhi, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act alleging that the petitioner-tenant was let out the suit property for residential purpose by Mrs.Raj Sondhi, the previous owner of the property. In 1976, this property was sold by Mrs. Raj Sondhi to the respondents/landlords. On account of a settlement between the family, the property in question fell to the exclusive share of respondent No.1. The petitioner- tenant had attorned to respondents after the purchase of the property. The respondent No.1, a permanent resident of Mumbai alleged that he had been a Member of Parliament and a Minister and even now he was the Secretary of Samajwadi Janta Party and as such, visiting Delhi several times. Sometimes his visits were even two to three times a month. He was a Director of M/s.Gannon Dunkerley and Company Ltd., Nehru Place, New Delhi and had to visit Delhi with a view to manage and attend to the affairs of the said Company. He was sometimes visiting Delhi with his wife also and facing inconvenience for not having any place to stay at Delhi. He was also Vice-president of Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI), the meetings of which were sometimes held at Delhi. The respondent No.1 prayed for eviction of the petitioner-tenant mainly on the ground that he bonafide required the premises in question for his residence at Delhi during his visits to Delhi.

(3.) . The petitioner-tenant moved an application under Section 25-B (4) of the Act for leave to defend mainly on the ground that the respondent No.1 was not the exclusive owner of the premises in question and was merely a co-owner and as such, could not file the eviction petition. It was further contended that the respondent No.1 was a permanent resident of Mumbai and did not require the premises in question for his residence or the residence of his family members. His daughters were stated to be married and living at Calcutta and Singapore. It was also pleaded that the respondent was having a Government Bungalow No.12, Tin Murti Marg, New Delhi for his stay on his visits to Delhi. However, this plea was not pressed later as the said Bungalow had been withdrawn from respondent No.1 after he ceased to be a Member of Rajya Sabha. The petitioner asserted that the petition filed by respondent No.1 did not disclose any bonafide need and it was a false, frivolous, motivated, vexatious and mis-conceived petition.