DEVINDER KUMAR JAIN Vs. T N IDNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Seiction. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of eviction dated 6th September 1985 passed by Mr. J.M. Malik, Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act against the petitioner.

(2.) On 14/3/1980 the respondents Shri T.N. Idnani and his wife Mr. Gangabai Idnani filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner on ground of bona fide requirement under. Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. The respondents were allowed to amend the eviction petition and the amended petition is dated 23rd September 1981. They alleged that the petitioner was their tenant in one and a half storey building with garden, terrace and out houses at B-19, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi shown in the plan attached on a monthly rent of Rs. 2500.00 besides electricity and water charges; the premises were let for residential purposes in the first week' of October, 1978 ; they were the owners of the premises which were required bona fide by them for occupation as residence for themselves and for members of their family defendant upon them, they had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation ; they were in possession of two bed rooms with attached baths, one study room one drawing-cum-dining room, one kitchen and one garage at D-403, Defence Colony, New Delhi on rent since May, 1964 ; their family consisted of themselves, their unmarried daughter, their married son and his wife; their son was re-transferred to Delhi in June, 1981; the existing accommodation was grossly inadequate for their requirements ; respondent No. I had received a notice dated 28/4/1980 from his landlord Shri A. D. Khanna through Shri G. L. Mehra Advocate calling upon him to vacate the premises under his tenancy.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant in his amended written statement dated 5/3/1984 pleaded that the premises were not let for any specific purpose and the same could be used for residential-cum-commercial purposes ; the agreed rent was exhorbitant and he had applied for fixation of standard rent ; the respondents were not the owners ; the house belonged to their son Lalit ; the premises were not required by them and their claim was bogus, sham and mala fide. It was denied that the respondents were living in tenanted premises ; the notice dated 28/4/1980 from the landlord of respondent No. I was a fabricated one ; the respondents were interested in enhancing rent and therefore in May, 1979 the respondent No. I brought to him a draft lease deed for a period of two years in the first instance renewable for a further term of two years subject to increase in monthly rent by 10% and in case of increase in taxes, the liability would be of the petitioner ; the respondent had not mentioned in the draft lease deed, the rate of rent but they had demanded enhanced rent at Rs. 3000.00 per month ; the petitioner did not agree to the enhancement and other clauses in the draft lease deed ; the respondents raised a false claim of bona fide requirement ; the claim was mala fide ; the premises in suit had fallen vacant in October, 1978 and in case the same were reired by them they would have occupied the same instead of letting it out to the petitioner ; at the time of letting, the petitioner was given to understand that the premises were let on permanent basis ; the tenancy was created orally and no regular lease deed was executed for any specific period ; there had been no change in the circumstances of the respondents since the letting of the premises and as such they were not entitled to an order of eviction. The respondents in their replication reiterated their case.