RADHEY SHYAM Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [Ed. facts: Respondent was a Govt. servant in Ministry of Defence. He retired from service on 31.1.93. Within one year of date of retirement he sued petitioner for eviction u/S. 14C of DRC Act, 1958 as amended in 1988 alleging that he was living in his father's house as a licensee and accommodation in the said house is not sufficient as his father and other family members were living. He also alleged that he had let out suit premises to petitioner on 6.6.90 for 22 months and though giving of notice was not necessary he gave notice on 24.1.94. Petitioner applied for leave to defend contending that respdt. had ample accommodation in father's house and the said house is ancestral and that he had purchased suit house for renting out only and that landlord rented out premises to him in 1987 and had been repeatedly enhancing rent from Rs. 950.00 to 1050.00 and then to Rs. 1200.00 on 6.6.90 and then to Rs. 1300.00 (by enhancing @ 10%). ARC did not find these assertions enough to grant leave to defend and rejected same and passed decree. Tenant filed revision in High Court.] After detailing above. Judgment proceeds :

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the sole object of the landlord was to have an additional renual income and not the tenant's eviction from the premises and thus the alleged need was not bonafide but was malafide one.

(3.) In so far as the last submission, the matter stands concluded by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Anand Swaroop Vohra vs. Bhim Sen (54-1994 DLT 331) wherein it has been held that in view of Section 14C of the Act an employee of Central Government who is retired or is on the verge of retirement can recover immediate possession of his tenanted premises if the same are required by him for his own residence. If such a person is having more than one tenanted premises he has to confine his requirement in respect of only one of such premises according to his choice. It was further held that the tenant will be allowed to take up defence connected with or related to the claim or right of the landlord and defence u/S. 14(l)(e) of the Act would not be available to a tenant against an application made u/S. 14 B to 14 D.