DEVI SINGH Vs. CHAMAN LAL ITORORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under proviso to sub-section (8) of section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be called the Act).

(2.) The petitioner landlord brought an application under Section 25B of the Act against the tenant. It is pleaded that the petitioner landlord roqures the premises bona fore for personal need. Chapter 3A has been added to the Act by Parliament Act 18 of 1976 for the summary trial of certain applications. Section 25B (1) provides from applicitions by a landlord for the recovery of the premises on the ground of bona fide need as specified in clause (e) of proviso to subsecticio (1) of section 14. Sub-section (4) provides that when the tenant appears in pursuance of summons, he shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller, and in default of his appearance the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid. Sub-section (5) provides that the Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 or under section 14A of the Act.

(3.) In pursuance of the summons served on the respondent tenant an application was filed in which the various pleas were taken in the affidavit by him. Objection was taken that notice has not been served as required by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as service was affected on 6-11-1975 while the respondent was asked to quit on 30-11-1975. Objection was also taken on the ground that the premises in dispute are not residential and the letting was not purely for residential purposes. Affidavit filed by the tenant mentioned that the son of the petitioner was also living in the lower portion of the house and was constructing his own building and if the landlord was moving to the lower portion and providing accommodation for his son in the portion in the first floor occupied by the tenant the same was not bona fide need. On a consideration of various facts, leave to contest the eviction application has been granted. Aggrieved against that the 'petitioner landlord has come up to this court.