S C CHAWLA Vs. HARBANS LAL KHULLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very important question has been raised as to whether the respondent, Harbans Lal Khullar, who retired as male driver from Western Railway, Jaipur Divison, is an employee of the Central Government?

(2.) The facts are short and simple. The respondent retired from Western Railway on 31st August,1992 as male driver. He had let out his premises known as MIG residential flat bearing No.BIA/23C, Pankha Road Residential Scheme, JanakPuri to the petitioner Sh.S.C.Chawla. The flat was let out in 1974 at amonthly rentofRs.250.00 . While the respondent was in service, he was allotted a staff quarter at railway colony, Bandikui, which he vacated on 30th June, 1992. He wanted to shift and settle at Delhi in his own house. He has in fact already shifted to Delhi along with his wife and is presently residing in a tenanted premises at Pitam Pura, where he is paying a monthly rent @Rs. 1500.00 . This house he took on rent on 1st November, 1992. He has no other suitable residential accommodation available at Delhi except the suit property. The petitioner's sons, who are also working and residing outside Delhi visit him off and on along with their families. Most of his relatives are in Delhi and in old age he wants to live in his own house.

(3.) The tenants petitioner herein, filed a leave to defend affidavit, raising the plea that respondent owns sufficient accommodation at Rajinder Nagar. He has already filed two eviction petitions one u/s 14(1) (e) and other u/s 14(1) (b) (d) of the Act which are still pending. That the respondent, in fact, wants the petitioner to vacate the house so that he could get higher rent. In replication, the respondent denied that he has any accommodation at Rajinder Nagar. The property at Rajinder Nagar measuring 128 sq.yds. belonged to his father and after the death of his father, he alongwith his four brothers, inherited that property. But the said property was sold by them on 2nd April, 1987. He denied that he wanted to re-let the house in question. The learned Rent Controller after considering the case on merits declined to grant the leave. He found that the tenant had not raised any triable issue.