UNIVEREAL CYLINDER LIMITED Vs. GURDMRAN SINGH RISHI PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts need not. detain me for long. Major (Retired) Gurcharan Singh Rishi Raj filed a petition under Section 14B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) for an order of eviction against his tenant M/s. Universal Cylinder Ltd. which is the petitioner before me. It may be noticed that Section 14B of the Act confers upon certain members of the Armed Forces etc. right to recover immediate possession of premises. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings Major (Retd.) Gurcharan Singh Rishi Raj moved an appliction under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to incorporate yet another ground of eviction enumerated in Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. Under the said clause an owner-landlord can seek eviction provided the premises had been let out for residential purpose and the same are required bonafide by him for his own residence and for the residence of his family members dependent upon him. Of course, under the said clause it is also to be proved to the satisfaction of the Controller that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.

(2.) The learned Rent Controller by his impugned order allowed the application holding that compelling the landlord to file afresh petition under Section 14(1)(e) would only result in multiplicity of litigation causing delay and that in any case the tenant could be compensated by way of costs. Aggrieved by the said order the tenant company has preferred this civil revision.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a judgment of this Court in Madan Lal Lamba v. Tirlok Singh Sehgal, 1991(43) DLT 623 and has contended on its basis that since it had come in the evidence of the landlord that he had with him an independent dwelling unit, therefore, fearing that his petition under Section 14B might be dismissed, he moved the application for amendment .seeking to incorporate yet another ground of eviction. I may hasten to add that in the judgment referred to above which was under Section 14 C (2) of the Act relating to a retired Central Government employee, it was held that where the landlord is in possession of an independent dwelling unit the petition would be liable to be dismissed irrespective of the fact as to whether the premises in his possession are sufficient or not.