S S SIDHU Vs. RAMKISHAN KHANDUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision petition filed under Section25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), seekingto set aside an order passed on 1/04/1994, by Shri K.S. Khurana, Additional RentController, Delhi, rejecting his application, for leave to contest and also simultaneously passing an order of eviction in favour of the landlord/respondent.

(2.) On 22/03/1993, a petition for eviction under Section 14(l)(e) read withSection 25B of the Act was preferred by the landlord seeking tenant's eviction fromthe first floor of premises bearing No. D-15, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, NewDelhi. It was alleged that the premises in question comprising two rooms with akitchen, bath, W.C. along with front and back verandah had been let out to the tenanton 3/07/1974 for residential purpose, which was required bona fide by thelandlord for his own use and for the use and occupation of his family members. Thelandlord was not having any other alternate reasonably sufficient and suitableaccommodation for the purpose. His family members consists of his wife, a marriedson and three married daughters. The marriage of the son was solemnized on 1 1/03/1993. There was no accommodation available for his son and daughter-in-law. He was having only two rooms, kitchen, bath, W.C. and open verandah. Inaddition, the married daughters usually and customarily have been coming andstaying with the landlord with their families. Eviction thus was sought undersummary procedure. .On being served, the tenant applied for grant of leave tocontest by filing his own affidavit.

(3.) The tenant sought leave to contest alleging that at the time when the premiseswas let out to him, the family of the landlord consisted of himself, his wife, threedaughters and a son. Now with the passage of time the three daughters weremarried. Thus there has been reduction in the number of family members. Theaccommodation available in the ground floor was more than sufficient for therequirement of the petitioner and his family members, namely, his son anddaughter-in-law. A couple of years ago second floor in the same building had fallenvacant, which was let out by the landlord to another tenant. Thus the need was notbona fide. The landlord's son and daughter-in-law were earning members and werenot dependent for the purpose of accommodation on the landlord. The petition wasmala fide with a view to compel the tenant to enhanced rent. Ownership of thelandlord was also challenged. The stand taken by the tenant in his affidavit wascontroverted by the landlord in his reply-affidavit. The Controller through theimpugned order proceeded to reject the application holding that the affidavit filedin support of the application for leave to contest did not disclose any triable issue andconsequently proceeded to allow landlord's application holding that the premiseswere bona fide required for the personal use and occupation. It is this order whichis under challenge.