SUDERSHAN KUMAR TERI Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the owner-landlord is directed against the order dated 15/2/1983 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi whereby his petition for eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner has failed a petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. Inparagraph 18 (a) of the petition, it was stated that the premises in dispute had been let to the respondent for residential purpose and are required by the petitioner for bona fide personal requirement. It is further alleged that the petitioners is serving with the Indian Army and was posted outside, Delhi. He had besides himself, his wife and a grown up son. At the time of filing of the petition, the petitioner was posted in Eastern Sector in Assam which is not a family station and the petitioner could not keep his family with him. However, by a special permission, he was allowed to keep his family at 25/1, Shivaji Nagar, Mizamari, Assam. The petitioner served a notice upon the Respondent to vacate the premises on the ground that the same was needed by him for his personal bona fide requirement for himself and for members of his family. He wanted to keep his family at Delhi for which he required the premises in dispute. It is further alleged that the son of the petitioners is studying in Xth Class and has to appear in his final examination in March, 1980 and there being no arrangement for his education at the place where he was studying at the point of time. It has also been stated that the petitioner has no other residential accommodation muchless reasonable or suitable in Delhi or New Delhi.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent various preliminary objections were raised. It was stated that there was no privity oF contract between the petitioner and the respondent and the petitioner had no locus standi to file the petition. Further stated that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and the respondent was never the- tenant of the petitioner. It is also stated that the premises in question were originally let by Sunil Kumar Tewari and later on the rent was paid to Shri K. Teri at the instance of the said S.K. Tewari (at both places in these objections the name of S.K. Tewari has been put in different handwriting by pen though the rest of the paragraph is typed). It is also stated that the respondent-tenant does not know the petitioner and the premises were let to the respondent not by the petitioner nor anybody let out the property on behalF of the petitioner and as such the respondent is not tenant of the petitioner. On merits, it is stated that the premises were let for residential-cum-commercial purposes. The respondent has been running a transport agency in the name of Rajinder Goods Transport Co. as well as travel agency for the booking of buses and other transport. According to the respondent, he had been running transport agency in these premises from the very inception of the tenancy. Similarly the bonafide requirement of the petitioner for himself and also for his family members had been disputed.