SHAM SINGH BIST Vs. SUSHIL BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller Shri Rakesh Kapoor on 20.3.90, whereby leave to defend the eviction petition was granted to the tenant respondent herein. As per the record. Sham Singh Bisht petitioner herein filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for the eviction of the respondent from the suit premises alleging himself to be the owner landlord of the premises. It has been alleged that these premises were let out to the respondent on 11.6.85 on a monthly rent of Rs. 250.00 and that it was agreed that after 11 months he would vacate these premises as the petitioner would require the same for his residence and for the residence of his family members. His father was working as Daftri and he along with his father was living in a Govt. accommodation which stood allotted to his father and that his father was due to retire on 31.12.89 when he would be vacating the allotted accommodation. This petition has been filed for personal bonafide requirement. As the petition was filed under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, summons as specified in III Schedule were served on the respondent who filed an application seeking leave to defend the eviction petition under Section 25B (5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The pleas taken by the respondent tenant in his application seeking leave to defend were that the petition was malafide without any cause of action and that the same was not maintainable. The ownership of the petitioner was also denied and it was alleged that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose. In the affidavit filed in support of his application these facts were reiterated. It was further mentioned that the petitioner wanted to enhance the rent failing which to get the premises vacated and that there was no bonafide necessity in favour of the petitioner who is comfortably residing with his father and that be is unmarried.

(2.) That application was contested by the petitioner who filed a reply supported by an affidavit. In his reply he stated that his father retired on 31.12.1989 and that he was required to vacate the Govt accommodation and that his need was bonafide. It is reiterated that he is the owner landlord of the premises in question. It was denied that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose.

(3.) The Addl. Rent Controller vide order dated 20.3.90 granted leave to defend only on the plea taken by the tenant in his application that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose and that the petition under Section 14(1) (e) was not maintainable.