KANTA GOEL Vs. B P PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision filed on behalf of the tenant, Shrimati Kanta Goei, under proviso to subsection (8) of section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the order of the Rent Controller dated 16-9-1976 under section 14A(1) of the Act rejecting the application of the petitioner for leave to contest the ejectment application filed by the respondent. As a sequiter, the Rent Controller, passed an order on the same day stating that since the petitioner's application for leave to contest ejectment application was rejected the respondent was entitled to a decree for eviction. The petitioner was asked to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within two months of the order.

(2.) The eviction petition dated 3-2-1976 was filed by Shri B. P.Pathak (respondent) against Shrimati Kanta Goei (petitioner) purported to be under section 14A of the Act, as amended by the Delhi Rent Control Act (Amendment) Act, 1976. In this petition, the eviction of the petitioner was sought from the first floor of premises No. 23/6, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. The respondent had averred in the eviction application that he is the landlord of the premises in dispute, that the premises let out to the petitioner were residential. The description of the property was also given. Regarding the eviction from the first floor, it was averred that the landlord is in occupation of the Central Government's premises bearing No. 14-C, Havelock Square, Kali Bari Mandir Marg, New Delhi and has been ordered to vacate the said residential accommodation by 31st December, 1975 and that he has no other alternative suitable accommodation except the premises in dispute. It was also averred that he bona fide required the premises in question. It was further pleaded that a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was duly given by registered post which was received by the petitioner to which she gave a vague reply.

(3.) In the column relating to the name and address of the landlord, the respondent described himself as the sole landlord of the premises.