LAWS(DLH)-1977-4-17

KAMAL KISHORE CHOPRA Vs. O P DWEDI

Decided On April 15, 1977
KAMAL KISHORE CHOPRA Appellant
V/S
O.P.DWIVEDI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been filed under subsection (8) of section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It has been filled by the tenant and is directed against the order of the Additional Controller dated 18th October, 1976, by which he has refused the petitioner leave to contest the eviction, petition and has passed an order for eviction against the petitioner.

(2.) The material facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant of the respondent in respect of the premises in dispute. On 4th June 1976 the respondent instituted a petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity specified in clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The petition had to be tried according to the summary procedure prescribed by section 25B of the Act. On service of the summons the petitioner filed an application for leave to contest the eviction petition. The petitioner raised the following objections : (1) the notice was invalid ; (2) the need of the landlord was not bona fide as he wanted to increase the rent ; and (3) the landlord was not the owner of the property, but the Delhi Development Authority was the owner. The Addl. Controller has refused the leave to contest the eviction petition and has in accordance with the provisions of law passed an order for eviction. Mr. R. P. Sharma, Advocate, appearing to support the petitioner, has assailed the order and reiterated the aforesaid three conventions.

(3.) So far as the invalidity of the notice is concerned, the plea raised was wholly vague and no invalidity has been pointed out. As held in V. L. Kashyap v. R. P. Puri, ILR (1977) I Delhi 22(1), the tenant is required to state facts, which will disentitle the landlord from obtaining eviction. Merely negative or vague pleas to put the landlord on proof are not enough and if they are allowed to merit the grant of leave, the whole object of the summary procedure would be defeated. The first objection of the petitioner has no force and has rightly been rejected by the Addl. Controller.