MITHLESH KUMAR Vs. SUBHADRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under the provisions of sub-Section (8) of Section 25-Bof the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order for recovery of possession of the premises in dispute passed by Smt. Marnta Sehgal, Additional Rent Controller Delhi.

(2.) The respondent filed a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Act claiming eviction of her tenant Shri Mithlesh Kumar (petitioner before me). The details of accommodation given in para 8 of the eviction petition are one room shown red bound in the plan attached. In para 18(a), it is stated that the premises in dispute was let out to the respondent for residence purposes and the petitioner is the owner of the premises thereof, that the petitioner is now residing in Village and intends to shift to Delhi and she has no reasonably suitable accommodation to live in Delhi, that as such the petitioner requires the premises for her own use for her own use for occupation for herself and members of her family her and that the premises are urgently required by the petitioner for occupation as her resence. The tenant applied for leave to defend. The leave wai granted. In the written statement, the defence, inter alia, was that the landlady wai living at Village Bathera and a room is lying vacant in the premises in dispute and so, the premises in dispute are not required bonafidely by the landlady. The petition for eviction was set down for trial. By the impugned order dated August 10, 1984, the Addl. Rent Controller passed an eviction order against the tenant in respect of the premises shown red in Ex. AW. 1/3 bearing house No. 2613/16, Gali No. 16, Kailash Nagar, Delhi.

(3.) Mrs. Deepa Arya Madhok, the learned counsel for the petitionerherein has taken me through the records of the eviction petition. Her main submission is that the petition for eviction was mala fide as the same was filed on the pretext that the landlady wishes to shift to Delhi and there was no reasonably suitable accommodation available to her thus concealing intentionally the fact that there was already a similar room lying vacant in the building in dispute under her possession which she could easily occupy. In my view, this petition should succeed on this short ground.