(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 12.07.2001 declining to grant leave to defend to the petitioner in the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short "the DRC Act) , the petitioner prefers the present petition.
(2.) SINCE the present petition was dismissed for non -prosecution twice and thereafter restored in the interregnum, the respondent took possession of the tenanted premises in execution proceedings. Thus, vide order dated 17.07.2012, this Court noted that the petition will be disposed of on merits and till further orders, the respondent was directed not to create any third party interest of any kind in the suit premises.
(3.) IN the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, vague and general pleas were taken. It is stated that the respondent is harassing the petitioner as his family and the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner herein. However, in the suit and evidence led therein, the respondent nowhere pleaded his bona fide requirement of the suit premises. Since the respondent got no relief in the civil suit, he filed an eviction petition bearing No. E -224/09 before the learned ARC under Section 14(1)(a) DRC Act. It is stated that the monthly rent has been wrongly mentioned in the eviction petition and the tenanted premises was given on the rent of Rs. 600/ - per month which the petitioner is depositing in the account of the respondent. In the legal notice sent by Munna Khan to the respondent, it is nowhere stated that the respondent is living as a tenant and the rent is paid by him. Further, the brother of the respondent Munna Khan is having his house and is residing in the other house. It is stated that the respondent is having number of properties and commercial premises, however, the details of none of the properties have been mentioned.