FAQIR CHAND Vs. VED PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Delhi dated 4th August, 1992 whereby the eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14C of Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act 1988(hereinaftcr referred to as the Act) was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts which led to the filing of the petition are as follows: The petitioner let out the premises consisting one bed room, one drawing cum dining room, one kitchen, one WC with attached bath room and front Verandah in property No. 145 Gagan Vihar, Delhi on 14th October, 1985. The petitioner being a Central Government employee tenanted the premises to the respondent since he did not require them while he was in service. The petitioner retired from Government service on 2nd October, 1989. Since petitioner's own premises were not vacant and tenanted to the respondent he shifted to premises No. H-141.N.A. Colony, New Delhi, an official accommodation allotted to his friend Shri R.K. Singhal. Since the petitioner could not continue in the friend's accommodation for long and he wanted his own accommodation back after his retirement, he moved the petition for eviction under Section 14C of the Act.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller by way of the impugned order while accepting that the premises in occupation of the respondent were required by the petitioner for his own residence and he being a retired employee of the Central Government was entitled to get back the premises under Sec.l4C of the Act, dismissed the eviction petition on the sole ground that the petition filed by the petitioner was not in respect of the whole of the premises tenanted to the respondent and had sought only partial eviction of the respondent. The Rent Controller held that the respondent was the tenant of the entire house and not the portion of the house as stated in the eviction petition. The petitioner relied on written agreement entered into between him and the respondent at the time of letting to show that only part of the premises wa.s let out to the respondent. However, since the lease agreement was not registered, it was not exhibited. The petitioner had also not paid adequate stamp duty on the lease agreement, however after the petition was filed, on an order passed by the Rent Controller he made up the deficiency in the stamp duty. The Rent Controller however refused to rely on the rent agreement since it was not registered, registration being necessary in view of the fact that the lease was for a period of two years. The Rent Controller, therefore, decided the question of the extent of accommodation without looking at the lease deed but on the basis of oral evidence led by the parties. The petitioner had stated that the respondent had committed trespass in the year 1988 and the criminal complaint was filed in 1990 just before the filing of the eviction petition. The Rent Controller observed that since the petitioner had remained silent for two to three years and had not filed a criminal complaint till 1990, an adverse inference had to be drawn against the petitioner and accordingly he held that the respondent is in fact a tenant in respect of the entire property and the eviction petition as filed in respect of only a part of the premises was bad on the ground that partial eviction had been sought.