SUPERIOR EXIM PVT LTD Vs. SITAR RAM GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions under section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') are directed against common order dated 3rd May, 2012 of Additional Rent Controller (ARC) whereby in the five eviction petitions filed by the landlord petitioner herein, the leave to contest applications of the tenants (respondents herein) were allowed.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be the owner of property bearing No. 2, Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi � 54 and the respondents its tenants in different portions therein. The eviction of the tenants was sought under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 B of the Act on the ground that tenanted premises are required for residence of its employees. The tenants sought leave to defend the eviction petitions on various grounds. RC Rev. Nos. 401, 403, 404, 405 & 406 of 2012 Page 2 of 7 They have disputed the correctness of the site plan and have alleged that eviction petitions to be not maintainable, being for partial eviction of the tenanted premises. They also alleged the petitions being not filed by the competent and anuthorized persons as also there being no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. They also contended the tenanted premises to be let out for residential-cum- commercial purposes. However, the main contest was regarding the petitions being not maintainable under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25 B of the Act as the eviction was sought for the employees and not for any dependent family members of the owner/landlord. Appointment letters of the employees were also alleged to be forged and manipulated for the purpose of creation of paucity of accommodation for the need of the employees. It was alleged that in any case, the petitioner owned several other properties in that area. The details of some of those properties were also given by the tenants (respondents herein). It was alleged that these properties were, in any case, sufficient to meet the bonafide requirement, if any, of the petitioner.

(3.) THE impugned order is assailed on the ground that the learned ARC erred in observing that the tenants raised triable issues. It was contended that the learned ARC erred in opining that the eviction petitions of the tenanted premises for the residence of the employees of the petitioner were not maintainable under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25B of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions in this regard relies upon the Single Bench decision of this Court in Chuni Lal Vs. University of Delhi, 1970 R.C.R. 742. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also contends that a landlord under Section 2 (e) of the Act means any person who is entitled to receive rent and that word 'person' would include a corporate body. He further contends that section 22 of the Act providing for eviction of the premises for the employees, is in addition to the remedy which is available to a landlord under Section 14 of the Act.