ISHWARI DEVI Vs. RALLIA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The tenant, whose petition for leave to defend filed under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was dismissed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, is the petitioner in this revision petition. The landlord on 7th of June 1984 filed a suit No. 207/84 for possession under section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (herein after referred as the 'Act') for personal occupation.

(2.) The defence by the tenant was the petition was filed within 5 years from the date of purchase which is barred under the Act and that the landlord has not established his bona fide requirement. On 24th of September, 1988 the suit was decreed over ruling the objections of the tenant. The tenant preferred in this Court C.R. 109/89. This Court hd that the sale certificate issued by the Competent Authority under the Evacuee Property Act was issued on 7th of January 1984 and, therefore, the eviction suit filed within 5 years was premature under the provisions of Section 14(6) of the Act. The Civil Revision was allowed on 22nd of February, 1993 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bahri. Thereafter, in 1993 the landlord filed suit No. 79/93 under section 14(1)(e) for owner's occupation. The tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend under section 25-B(4) of the Act. The petition under this provision runs into 5 pages. There are five paragraphs. In paragraph 5 grounds (a) to (p) are mentioned. The prayer in the petition at the end of paragraph 5 is "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that unconditional leave to defend the eviction petition may kindly be granted to the replying respondent and may pass such other order/s as may do complete justice in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice". Therefore, the only point taken in the leave to defend petition is that the purchase by the first respondent-landlord from the authorities under the Evacuee Property Act is not valid and, therefore, the first respondent did not acquire any title to the property. The learned Additional Rent Controller by order dated 12th of April 1994 dismissed the petition and ordered eviction in the main suit. The learned Additional Rent Controller held that the landlord has become the owner of the property and the High Court while allowing C.R. 109/89 had held that first respondent -landlord had become owner of the property and that would operate as res judicata.

(3.) About the purpose of letting, the learned Additional Rent Controller in paragraph 8 said that the High Court in C.R. 109/89 held that the tenant has not challenged the finding of the lower court, that the demised premises was let out for residential purposes only and the landlord bona fide requires the same for occupation as well as for his family members dependent on him and that finding by the High Court would operate as res judicata. The learned Additional Rent Controller in paragraph 9 has further stated that even otherwise inasmuch as the tenant has not at all disputed the claim of the landlord in the suit, claim of the landlord is proved. In paragraph 9, learned Additional Rent Controller has given independent reasons for accepting the case of the landlord.