(1.) This is a petition for revision on behalf of the tenant under the proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against an order dated 28th August, 1980 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing an application for leave to contest the eviction proceedings filed against them by the respondent/landlord on the ground of bona tide personal requirement.
(2.) On or about 15th May, 1980, respondent, Shri Keshav Kumar Swarup filed a petition for eviction of the appellants under clause (e) to Subsection (1) of Section 14 read with Section 25B of the Act inter alia on the following grounds: The petitioner is the owner of the premises in dispute. The petitioner's family consists of wife, son and a daughter. The petitioner is a businessman and Director of Sugar Mill and Vanaspati Plant run under the name and style of "Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd.". This factory has an office at Delhi in Delite Building at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. Besides his other business activities, the petitioner is looking after the Delhi Office. The son of the petitioner is looking after the Delhi Office. The son of the petitioner is at present getting education at the Punjab University at Chandigarh, doing Master of Business Administration Course. This is the final year of the son and he has also to live at Delhi to look after the Delhi Office and has also to settle in Delhi. Neither the petitioner nor any member of his family has got any other suitable house in Delhi, excepting the premises in dispute, where the petitioner and his family can live. The petitioner is a heart patient and on account of lack of medical facilities at Muzaffarnagar, has to come to Delhi very frequently for consultation and treatment. The Doctor at Muzaffarnagar has advised the petitioner to shift to Delhi as the medical treatment available at Muzaffarnagar for a heart patient is grossly inadequate. There is no 'Intensive Care Unit' in the Civil Hospital at Muzaffarnagar, which can be availed of in the event of an emergency. The daughter of the petitioner has been married recently and she with her husband are also visiting Delhi off and on. The entire family of the petitioner has to settle down at Delhi."
(3.) In paragraph 14 of the application, it was averred that the premises were let to the appellants with effect from 1st August, 1974. No copy of the lease deed or the agreement was filed with this petition. The petitioners, M/s. Flowmore Pvt. Ltd. were served with the summons as prescribed by 56 Sub-section (4) of Section 25B read with third schedule to the Act on 10th " June, 1980 and filed an application accompanied by an affidavit on 30th June, 1980 for leave to contest the eviction petition.