D N SHARMA Vs. S P SURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit.

(2.) . The respondent, Shri S.P.Suri was a permanent Assistant of C.S.S. cadre of the Ministry of Home Affairs, officiating as Section Officer on ad hoc basis in the said Ministry. He retired from the service w.e.f. the afternoon of 30th June,1994. As an official of the Ministry of Home Affairs, he was allotted a Government accommodation. Presently he and his family are occupying the said Government accommodation. After his retirement he was required under the rules to vacate the Government accommodation. Accordingly, he approached the present petitioner to vacate the premises under his tenancy, so that the same could be occupied by him and to enable him to leave the Government accommodation. It had also been the case of the landlord/ Mr.S.P.Suri that the present petitioner assured that he would vacate the premises. The petitioner had been allotted by the D.D.A. under the S.F.S.Scheme a house bearing No.B-1/1109 situated at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The flat is a duplex type situated at second and third floor. When the petitioner inspite of assurance did not vacate the premises in question, the respondent got him served with a legal notice. In the meantime, Director of Estate initiated eviction proceedings against the respondent vide notice dated 18th July,1994 thereby asking him to vacate the Government premises on or before 1st November,1994. It was under these circumstances that the petition for eviction under Section 14(C) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) was filed in September,1994 indicating all the above facts.

(3.) . Leave to defend application was filed by the petitioner. The main defence set up was that the rent of the premises which the petition was paying is more than Rs.3,500.00 per month, therefore, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to decide the petition. Secondly the premises was let out for residential-cum- commercial purposes and finally the respondent/landlord had no intention to occupy the premise. He was interested to sell the same. In that affidavit he also took the plea that the lease was for an indefinite period because he had raised with his resources construction of permanent nature which vest in him a right to occupy the premises on perpetual basis. That the rent was partly paid in cash and partly by cheque. Landlord acknowledged the same.