RAM KISHAN Vs. JAGTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under sub -section (8) of Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) is filed by the petitioner, who is tenant, assailing in order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 06.10.2001 whereby he has rejected the application on affidavit filed by the tenant for leave to contest the application for recovery of the possession of the tenancy premises filed by the landlord and has passed an eviction order against him under clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act. The relevant facts necessary for appreciating the contentions of the parties on merit are as follows. The respondent is seeking eviction of his tenant the petitioner under clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act from the first floor and the second floor of the premises bearing No. 2446, Gali No. 10, Block -M, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The allegations are that he is residing with his family in a rented accommodation in Chandigarh and that he is engaged in the transport business there. His family comprised of himself, his wife, a son, who is studying in M.E. and his three daughters who are students in B.A. final, 12th class and 8th class respectively in Chandigarh. He purchased this property in 1994 but because of the bar of his filing the eviction application before a lapse of five years from the date of his acquisition of the property, he filed the application now in May, 1999. It was also alleged that the premises were let to the petitioner/tenant by the previous owner/landlord for residential purpose and that the premises are required by him for occupation as residence for himself and other members of his family dependent upon him and that he is not in a possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi. He further submitted that he requires one bedroom for himself and his wife, one bedroom for his son, one bedroom for his daughters and one study room for his son and daughters besides drawing -cum -dining room, one pooja room, one guest room and a store. He is also filing another eviction petition for evicting the tenant on the ground floor of this property for his personal bona fide need.

(2.) THE summons in the form prescribed in Schedule -III of the Act was served on the defendant who preferred application on affidavit for seeking leaving to contest the eviction application. In the application he pleaded that the premises were taken on rent by him for residential -cum -commercial purpose and they were being used for this dual purpose right from the inception of tenancy. According to him, he was carrying on business in 'chappals' and the premises were being used as godown for these goods right from the inception of the tenancy and both, the previous landlord as well as the petitioner were receiving the rent of the premises from him with full knowledge of the use of the premises by him for residential -cum -commercial purpose. It was also alleged that the petitioner was settled and resided with his family in Chandigarh and he owned house No. 454, Sector 47, Panchkula, Haryana, which is a spacious house and his children were also getting education in Chandigarh. Moreover he was also engaged in transport business which he was carrying on in the name and style of Kisan Transport in Chandigarh and he had no intention to shift to Delhi. Besides, it was alleged that the petitioner owned another house No. 2532A, Sector -47, Chandigarh in which also he had a legal right to live. In addition, the petitioner owned house No. D -1813, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi wherein he stays as and when he visits Delhi after a gap of one year or so. It is alleged that the petitioner's requirement is not bona fide and that his intention is to sell off this property after getting it vacated by him. The petitioner also alleged that extent of the tenanted premises has not been correctly mentioned by the petitioner and that the petition is not maintainable for this reason also.

(3.) THE learned controller dismissed the application filed by the petitioner holding that prima facie the respondent was an admitted landlord/owner and that the premises were used for residential purpose and incidental use thereof for storing the 'chappals' by the petitioner will not convert it into non -residential premises since the petitioner was running his shop in Ghaffar Market. He further, prima facie, held that the respondent was residing in Chandigarh in a rented accommodation and he did not own any residential premises there or in Rajouri Garden in Delhi. He was told that during the pendency of the case the son of the respondent had shifted to Delhi and was studying in MBA. He also observed that since the respondent was running the transport business plying his vehicles between Delhi and Chandigarh, he could carry on this business from Delhi as well. He, accordingly, held that the landlord wanted to shift the residence and business to Delhi and this intention could not be doubted as the landlord was the best judge of his own residential need. For all this reason, the leave application was dismissed and an order of eviction was passed under clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act directing recovery of possession of the premises from the petitioner giving him six months time to vacate the premises.