CHIKA LIMITED Vs. KRISHAN BEHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision under the proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 17-1-80 whereby the learned Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissed the application of the petitioner for leave to contest the ejectment application filed by the respondent on the ground of bona fide personal requirement under the provisions of Clause (c) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 read with the provisions of Section 25-B of the Act.

(2.) Respondent Shri Krishna Bihari as owner-landlord of premises No. D-3/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, filed a petition on or about 18-8-1979 for eviction of the respondents on the aforesaid ground.

(3.) The case of the respondent-landlord was that he had constructed the premises on a plot of land allotted to him by the Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society Limited and the plot is held on a perpetual sub-lease granted by the President of India. A copy of the perpetual lease was filed along with the petition. It was further alleged by landlord that the premises are residential and were let for residential purposes for a period of 11 months. It was also stated that the landlord intends to occupy the premises for his own use and for use of members of his family dependent upon him. The family of the petitioner for the aforesaid purposes comprises the landlord himself, his wife and a grown up daughter. The landlord has been temporarily staying along with his family members with his son who is independent and is a Doctor employed with the Government of India. It was also stated that the son of the landlord has also desired that the landlord and his wife and daughter should move to the landlord's house and stay on there and that he has his own plans for use by him of the Government accommodation allotted to him. It was also averred that even otherwise, the son of the landlord is holding a transferable job and is liable to be posted anywhere in India and the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and does not have any other property in Delhi. The landlord is in dire need of the accommodation in occupation of the petitioner. The landlord in these, circumstances, submitted that he bona fide needs the premises for use as a residence for himself and members of his family dependent upon him and has been repeatedly requesting the respondent to quit and vacate the same.