K. K. PASRICHA Vs. CHAMAN LAL GHEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant under sub-section (8) of section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order of Mr. M. A. Khan, Additional Controller, Delhi, dated 7th July, 1976, by which he has refused the petitioner-tenant leave to contest the eviction petition and has passed an order for eviction.

(2.) The material facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant of the respondent in respect of the premises in dispute, which are a portion of House No. G-26, portion C, Kalkaji, New Delhi on a rent of Rs. 200 per month. The respondent-landlord instituted a petition for eviction of the tenant on ground of bonafide personal necessity mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. In sub-para (b) of para 18 of the petition he stated that registered A. D. notice dated 16th February, 1976 as required by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had been served on the respondent on 23rd February 1976; copy attached and no reply received. Notice of the petition was served on the petitioner tenant who on 7th May, 1976 filed an application for leave to contest the petition. This was supported by an affidavit of the same date. In paragraph 8 of the tenant stated that no statutory notice of termination of tenancy of the respondent was served and as such no eviction petition as laid was maintainable. The other grounds urged by the tenant were denial of the sufficiency of accommodation with the landlord and the denial of his bonafide for the premises in dispute. A reply to this application was filed by the respondent-landlord. In the reply he reiterated that the notice dated 16th February, 1976 had been duly served on 23rd February, 1976 and the acknowledgement receipt and the postal receipt were on the record. The Additional Controller by the impugned order has not dealt with the question of the non-receipt or otherwise of the notice. He has, however, considered the need of the respondent and not finding any ground to grant leave to contest the eviction petition has rejected the same and thereupon passed an order for eviction.

(3.) Mr. Chopra in this revision has contended that at least the question of notice that had been agitated before the Additional Controller below raised a serious dispute of fact, which should not have been decided by him merely on affidavit and he ought to have set down the eviction petition for trial. Mr. Chopra also contends that in determining the bonafide need of the respondent to obtain possession of the tenanted premises he has decided the dispute merely on affidavits, which he could not do and the Additional Controller ought to have granted leave and set down the petition for trial on evidence. On the record of this court, there is a reply filed by the respondent landlord supported by his affidavit, in which it has been averred that the landlord served a notice dated 16th February, 1976 on the tenant which he received himself and signed the A.D. within the view of the wife of the landlord. This has a reference to the acknowledgement receipt on page 19 of the file and presumably tallies with the address on the registered cover of the notice.