INDER SINGH Vs. RANA INDERJIT SINGH JHALAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated 12th November 1980 of the Controller, Delhi, whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner-tenant for leave to contest and passed an order of eviction against her on the ground of bonafide personal requirement of the premises in dispute by the respondent-landlord as envisaged in clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) read with Section 258 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act').

(2.) THE facts of this case lie in narrow compass. The respondent Rana Inderjit Singh is an ex-Ruler of a princely State named Jhalawar (Rajasthan). He owns property bearing No. C-301, Defence Colony, New Delhi. It is a three-storeyed building. The petitioner is a tenant under him in respect of the first floor and the barasti floor besides a servant quarter on the second floor of the garage block. The demised premises are delineated in red in the site-plan filed by the respondent alongwith the eviction petition. The rent payable in respect of the demised premises is Rs. 1,000/- per mensem exclusive of water and electricity charges.

(3.) THE petitioner moved an application for leave to contest as contemplated by Section 25B(4) of the Act. She asserted that the accommodation in the possession of the respondent was quite sufficient having regard to the small size of his family, namely, his wife and two minor children. She pointed out that the respondent was not himself living at Delhi but was living at Jhalawar where he had spacious accommodation. However, he was visiting Delhi one or twice in a month. She denied that the mother and grandmother of the respondent were residing with him or that any people were visiting him at Delhi because of his being an ex-Ruler of Jhalawar State. She further averred that the respondent had another spacious residential building in Jor Bagh, New Delhi, which had been rented out to some other tenant against whom he had filed an eviction petition on the ground of bonafide personal requirement and as and when the said accommodation fell vacant he could shift there. Lastly, she called in question the bonafide of the respondent saying that he had several times requested her to increase the rent by atleast Rs. 800/- per mensem or to vacate the premises, but she declined to oblige him. She filed an affidavit in support of these contentions.