ANAND PRAKASH Vs. GANESHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 1982 of the Addl. Rent Controller dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to defend and passing an order for his eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act.

(2.) Briefly these are the facts. The respondent-landlady filed a petitioner for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground mentioned in Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. It has been alleged that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of two rooms, kitchen, bath, toilet, balcony with right to use the stair case and open space on first floor in House No. B-39, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 450.00 ; the respondent is the owner ; the premises were let for residential purposes and the same are required bona fide for her residence and for the residence of her family members dependent upon her and she has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It has been further alleged that the family of the landlady consists of herself, her son, daughter-in-law and three grand-children ; her relations with her daughter-in-law have not been cordial and on account of quarrelsome nature of daughter-in-law she has to lodge a report with the police, and she wants to have a separate mess for which there is no facility in the existing accommodation ; her grand-daughter is studying in 11th standard and grandson is studying in 8th class who require separate rooms for study ; her married daughter lives in Bihar and whenever she visits with the family, there is no accommodation for her stay ; for daughter's daughter Miss Gyatri Chugh has taken admission in College of Home Economics South Campus, Delhi University to pursue her studies and she had to seek accommodation in Hostel on payment of Rs. 1200.00 quarterly on account of non-availability of accommodation in the suit house. The respondent is in possession of ground floor consisting of three rooms, measuring 11'0"X13'-0', 11'7"X15'0" and 11'.0"X9'7" besides kitchen, bath, latrine. The petitioner filed an application for leave to defend which was dismissed by the Additional Controller hence this revision.

(3.) In Precision Steel & Engineering works and another v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 S.C. 1518 it has been laid down that the Controller has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant under Sub-Section (4) of Section 25B of the Act and the reply, if any, on behalf of the landlord. If the affidavit disclose such facts as would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession, the mere disclosure of such facts must be held sufficient to grant leave. Such facts on which leave to defend may be granted as enumerated by the Supreme Court are that the landlord has other accommodation in his possession which is sufficient for him, that the conduct of the landlord discloses avarice for increasing rent by threatening eviction, that the landlord has been letting out some other premises at enhanced rent without any attempt at occupying the same or using it for himself, that the dependents of the landlord for whose benefit possession is sought are not persons to whom in the eye of law the landlord was bound to provide accommodation ; that the past conduct of the landlord is such as would disentitle him to the relief of possession etc.