NET RAM Vs. BEANTSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order of eviction passed by an Additional Rent Controller against the petitioner on 5th March 1981 under clause (e) of proviso to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) On 21st December 1978 the respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner who is admittedly in occupation as a tenant of a portion comprising two rooms with common user of courtyard, bath and latrine, with other occupants of the premises bearing No. 84, Bharat Nagar (Mathura Road), New Delhi, under section 14(l)(e)read with section 25-B of the Act. He averred that he was the owner of the premises in question and he required the same bonafide for residence of himself and other members of his family, and that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. He explained that be was residing at house No. 44, Church Road, Jangpura (Bhogal) New Delhi but the accommodation there was not sufficient for himself and other members of his family who were dependent on him for their residence.

(3.) Leave to contest was granted to the petitioner as contemplated under section 25-B sub-section (5) of the Act and he filed a written statement, inter alia, contending that the existing accommodation with the respondent-landlord was quite commodious and sufficient for him and rcembers of his family and that he was living there alongwith his family members quite comfortably. He also took up the plea that the premises in question had been let out to him for residential-cum-commercial purposes. He denied that the respondent was owner of the premises in dispute Lastly he contended that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the said application in as much as the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the locality in which the premises in dispute were situated.