LAXMI PRASAD Vs. SURESH KUMAR MUDGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition had been filed by the petitioner-tenant under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958('the Rent Act' in short) against the order dated 03.12.1999 passed by Additional Rent Controller rejecting his application for grant of leave to defend the eviction petition filed against him by the respondent-landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act in respect of two rooms and an open courtyard in house no. 1/2772 Ram Nagar, Loni Road, Gali No. 9, Shahdara, Delhi which had been let out to him(hereinafter to be referred to as the 'premises in dispute').

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in the year 1998 under Section 14(1)(e) read with section 25-B of the Rent Act on the ground that his family consisted of himself, his wife, his two married sons, their wives and children and two married daughters. His sons alongwith their families were living in the same house of which the premises in dispute formed a part. The respondent himself was living in a separate rented premises in Katra Gokal Shah, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. It was further pleaded in the eviction petition by the respondent that he required the premises in dispute for his own residential purpose as he wanted to shift to his own house after vacating the premises where he was already living as a tenant since his landlord was wanting him to vacate. His family was divided into pieces for the purpose of residence at two different places because of paucity of accommodation and so he needed the premises in dispute.

(3.) An application dated 19.12.1998 under Section 25-B(4) of the Rent Act for grant of leave to defend the eviction petition was filed by the petitioner-tenant in which he had pleaded that the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord was based on false and baseless allegations as there was no bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlord for the premises in dispute as out of total built up area of 400 sq.yds. the petitioner-tenant was having a very small area of about 25/26 sq. yds. Built up portion under his tenancy and that in case he was not granted the leave to defend he would suffer irreparable loss.