VINOD KUMAR BHALLA Vs. NANAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant challenges the judgment and order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 19th December, 1981 dismissing his application for leave to defend and passing an order of eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against him.

(2.) The respondent-landlord on 8th May, 1981 filed the eviction petition out of which this revision has arisen alleging that the petitioner was his tenant in two rooms, kitchen, bath and W. C. on Barsati floor at K-l/39, Model Town, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 325.00 , that he was, owner of the premises which were let for residential purposes that he required the premises bona fide for the residence of himself and his family members consisting of himself, his wife, one married son, daughter-in-law, one unmarried son aged 21 years, three daughters aged 19, 17 and 14 years respectively, besides a servant, that the unmarried son was of marriageable age. He further alleged that he had been in possession of the entire ground floor consisting of two bed rooms, one drawing-cum-dining room, store, kitchen and a temporary shed in the rear besides two bath rooms, that he had no other residential accommodation, that his annual income was Rs. 44,000.00 that that he required five more rooms for his family, that he was intending to file another eviction petition against the heirs of the tenant in occupation of the first floor consisting of three rooms.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant in his application for leave to defend alleged that the respondent was not the owner, and one Thakur Dass was owner of the suit property, that his married son was in occupation of a separate house on Plot No. K-218, Model Town, Delhi as owner and was not dependent upon him, that the respondent had in his possession the entire ground floor, that he has no servant, that he had let out the first floor on exorbitant rate of rent, that he wanted to sell the property after getting it vacated and offered him Rs. 15,000 as premium to vacate the premises. The Additional Controller dismissed the application for leave to defend and passed the eviction order. Hence this revision under Section 25B(8) of the Act.