S C TANEJA Vs. P N ATRESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under the proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 31st October, 1981 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, for leave to appear and contest the eviction application filed against her by the respondent.

(2.) Shri P. N. Atreshi, respondent herein, filed an eviction petition on or about 13th October 1980 for eviction of the petitioner-tenant under clause (e) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act read with the provisions of Section 25-B of the Act.

(3.) The case of the landlord-respondent in the eviction petition was that the premises were let out to the petitioner for residential purposes, of which the respondent is the owner and the premises are now required bona fide by the respondent-landlord for himself and for members of his family dependent upon him and that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation available with him. It was further case of the landlord respondent that his family consists of himself, his wife, one son and two married daughters. It was stated that one daughter Mrs. Kiran Kaushik is married and living in Delhi having one son and one daughter and whereas the other daughter Mrs. Rekha Sharma is living at Faridabad temporarily having one son and that the brother and widowed sister of the respondent landlord are also living in Delhi. It was also alleged that the landlord and his wife are aged persons, chronic patients and all the relatives come to see them. It was also stated that son of the landlord is also living in Delhi but cannot live with the landlord because of lack of accommodation. It was further stated in the ejectment application that the landlord has got one store in the premises and the petitioner does not allow the landlord to use it and the respondent-landlord is consequently forced to live with his son. It was further stated that the accommodation with the respondent-landlord is too small to live decently befitting his status of a retired gazetted officer. It was also stated that the wife of the landlord was operated upon on 9th October, 1980 at Safdarjang Hospital for suspected case of cancer.