SARLA AGGARWAL Vs. DAY NIGHT COURIERS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is directed against the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dated 2.1.2003 thereby granting leave to contest an eviction petition filed by the petitioner herein.

(2.) Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to the present revision are that the petitioner herein has filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of bona fide need of the premises for her own use and the use of her family members. The petition was made with the averments and allegations that the petitioner is the owner/landlady of the SFS Flat No. L-382, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. She has let out a portion of the said flat consisting of Two bed rooms, drawing and dinning, two bathrooms, kitchen and Scooter garage to the respondent for residential purposes at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,300/- per month vide registered rent Agreement dated 1.12.1991 which was duly renewed on 6.11.1995. Both the petitioner and her husband are retired government servants and have a married son, his wife and children and they require the suit premises for their own use and occupation as the house occupied by them at Faridabad is not suitable for residence. It was also averred that the respondent have their own DDA Flat at Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. The respondent having been served with special summons, filed an application seeking leave to contest the eviction petition inter alia on the grounds that the need of the petitioner as reflected in the petition is not bona fide as she has sufficient alternate suitable accommodation available at Faridabad in Sector 37 and the application has been filed mala fide with a view to rent out the premises at higher rent. It is alleged that in the month of July or August, 1997, the petitioner has insisted upon the respondent to enhance the rent and threatened him to vacate the suit premises so the respondent was forced to file a civil suit which was, however, ultimately compromised between the parties. It was pleaded that the premises was let out to the respondent for residential-cum-commercial purpose and has been used for the office purpose by the respondent. It is alleged that the petitioner had earlier referred the matter to Arbitrator in June, 2001 with a view to pressurise the respondent to vacate the suit premises. In reply the averments and allegations made in the application were denied and controverted on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) Through the impugned order the learned Controller has allowed the application of the respondent and granted him leave to contest the eviction petition mainly on the ground that the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not firmly established and rather it was doubtful in view of certain recitations appearing in the Rent Agreement of 1991, Extension Agreement and the suit filed by the respondent before the Arbitrator. Yet another reason which weighed with the Controller was that the petitioner owns a house at Faridabad and for all intents and purposes is to be treated as a part of Delhi being in close proximity and touches the border of the State of Delhi and, therefore, availability of such accommodation to the petitioner was also relevant and the aspects raised triable issues.