BACHAN SINGH Vs. RAJINDER PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 24th December 1983 of an Additional Rent Controller (respondent No. 2 herein) granting leave to contest the eviction petition to respondent No. 1.

(2.) . The undisputed facts of this case are that the petitioner was in the employment of Delhi Fire Service as a Fireman. The said Service is a wing/unit of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Thus, being a municipal employee he was allotted official accommodation, viz. A-20, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi, by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. During his tenure in Delhi Fire Service he was able to build a house for himself which bore municipal No. AB-86, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. It comprised one living room on each of the two floors besides common bath room and lavatory etc. He let out a portion of the said premises comprising one room & open terrace on the first floor with common user of W.C. on the ground floor to respondent No. 1 sometime in 1978/1979. He was retired from service by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide order dated 31st October 1981 pursuant to the regulations framed by the Municipal Corporation which entitled them to retire employees of the Fire Service on attaining the age of 53 years. The petitioner and some of his colleagues who had been retired likewise challenged the validity of the amendment in the service rule fixing their age of superannuation as 53 years by way of writ petition as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 2nd February 1983 upheld the contention of the petitioner and his colleagues and quashed the amendnt holding that fire service personnel were entitled to continue in service upto the age of 58 years. During that period the eviction of the petitioner and other concerned employees from their respective residential accommodation allotted to them by the Municipal Corporation had been stayed. Eventually, however, the petitioner retired from service on 31st January 1984 on his attaining the age of 58 years.

(3.) . In the meanwhile, the petitioner moved an application in December 1982 for eviction of respondent No.1 on the ground of bonafide personal requirement under Section 14-A read with Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act). He averred that pursuant to order of superannuation dated 31st October 1981 he was being asked to vacate the premises allotted to him officially by the Municipal Corporation and he could not retain possession of the said premises on retirement as per provisions of the fundamental rules applicable in this behalf. He further averred that the premises in question had been let out to respondent No.1 for residence and that he (i.e. the petitioner) had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. He pointed out that his family consisted of his wife, three sons and a daughter, the latter having been already married. However, his married daughter was living with her husband on the ground floor of the premises in question and as such no portion of the premises was vacant.