INDER PAL Vs. RAM CHARAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent is owner-landlord of premises bearing municipal No. 1 143, Deva Ram Park, Delhi. The petitioner is a tenant in a portion oF the said premises comprising one room, common courtyard and common latrine. The demised premises is situate on the ground floor. At present the petitioner is paying Rs. 23.00 (Twenty-three) per mensem as rent besides electricity charges etc. The tenancy in favour of the petitioner was oral. The respondent moved an application for eviction of the petitioner in May 1980 on the ground of bonafide personal requirement falling under Clause (e) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act). He contended that the premises in question had been let out for residential purpose only, that his family consisted of himself, his wife and four children, that the accommodation available with him comprised only one room, one store and a kitchen which was not reasonably suitable and sufficient for his requirements and he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation with him.

(2.) In view of the special procedure laid in Section 25-B of the Act for such applications, the petitioner moved an application for leave to contest the eviction petition on the grounds stated therein and he also filed an affidavit in support thereof. Reply to the said application was filed by the respondent who opposed the same. He also filed a counter-affidavit controverting the allegations made by the petitioner in his application for leave to defend. The learned Controller, on consideration of the facts disclosed by the petitioner in hii application for leave to contest as also the reply of the respondent-landlord, came to the conclusion that the facts disclosed in the application for grant of leave were not sufficient and clear to disentitle the respondent-landlord to an order for eviction of the petitioner. So, he declined the leave petition and treating the facts stated by the reapondent-landlord as deemed to have been admitted, passed an order of eviction. against the petitioner on 12th November 1980. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has come up in this revision against the said order.

(3.) Leave was sought by the petitioner on the following grounds : (1) non-service of legal notice of termination of tenancy; (2) absence of permission to seek eviction from the Competent Authority (Slums) because the premises in question were situated in a slum area; (3) want of bonafides on the part of the landlord because he wanted to enhance the rent from Rs. 23.00 per mensem to Rs. 30.00 per mensem. It was specifically averred that the rent had been increased even earlier from Rs. 18.00 per mensern to Rs. 23.00 per mensern in 1976. According to the petitioner, the sole motive of the respondent-landlord was to harass him and let out the premises, after the same were evicted, at higher rent; (4) the past conduct of the respondent-landlord was such as to disentitle him to claim an order of eviction against the petitioner because whenever the premises were vacated in the past the same were let to various tenants and the first floor of the premises had been let out to one Mushadi Lal; (5) that the respondent-landlord was also in possession of premises bearing No. 88, Ashok Vihar, Delhi; and (6) that the accommodation in the possession of the landlord was sufficient for the needs of the landlord and members of his family and the application made by him was malafide and was aimed at harassing him. It was pointed out that the petitioner was a physically crippled person and could ill-afford to maintain six members of his family.