KEDARI LAL GUPTA Vs. C.B. SINGH RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/landlord is aggrieved by an order dated 14.2.2012 whereby the respondent/tenant was granted leave to defend, in a petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant from the tenanted premises i.e. property bearing No. 106, Ground Floor, Janta Flats, GTB Enclave, Delhi -110093. The case of the petitioner is that he had only two residential premises; one of which has been sold out and the other is occupied by the respondent. He is presently living in a rented accommodation and is having to suffer the tenancy at a mere rent of Rs. 550/ - per month, whereas the landlord himself is having to pay an amount of Rs. 1,500/ -. He contends that the impugned order erred in granting leave to defend, inasmuch as the application for leave to defend, along with the affidavit, discloses no triable issues; that the issues purporting to be triable are ex facie vague and cannot be deemed to be of any substantive value which would prima facie lead to denial of the issuance of an eviction order. He contends that the issues raised in the leave to defend were as under: -

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court had fallen into error in assuming that three flats which are said to be owned by the petitioner are not even mentioned in the leave to defend. In his reply, to the application for leave to defend, the landlord has categorically denied that he had three flats bearing Nos. 1559, 1560 & 1670 in GTB Enclave. He submits that the petitioner was residing in a rented accommodation, i.e. property No. 1483, 1st Floor, Janta Flats, GTB Enclave, Delhi -110093 because of a strained relationship with his family. He further submits that the petitioner did not have sufficient accommodation for himself and that after the demise of his brother Gopal, the latter's widow and his three children were dependent upon him. Furthermore, it is submitted, the petitioner being the elder member of the family had social responsibilities towards the care and accommodation of the deceased brother's family of four persons.

(3.) HE also relies upon this Court's judgment in Jitender Kumar Jain & Ors. V. M/s. J.K. Horticultural Produce Marketing & Processing Cor. Ltd., : 110 (2004) Delhi Law Times 193. In particular, reliance has been placed on paragraph nos. 4 and 5, which reads as under: -