NAVIN KUMAR GOEL Vs. JAWAHAR LAL WAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the tenant is directed against the eviction order dated 6.10.1986 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi.

(2.) The respondent-landlord-owner had filed a petition for eviction under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act as far back as July, 1981. It was alleged that the premises were. let for residential purpose and the same were bona fide required by the landlord for residence for himself and members of his family dependent upon him. It was further alleged that the respondent was the owner of the premises in dispute and he had no other suitable accommodation. The family of the respondent at that time consisted of himself, his wife, one married son, one daughler-in-law, one grand daughter aged about six months and daughter aged about 19 years. The accommodation available with the respondent was a drawing-cum-dining room, and two bed rooms besides the toilets W.C. and the kitchen.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant filed an application for leave to defend. On consideration of the entire material, the leave was refused and an eviction order was passed by the Addl. Rent Controller. The said eviction order was challenged in this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the revision petition and as the matter was taken up by special leave to the Supreme Cot. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted leave to defend the petition. Consquently the petitioner filed his written statement. It was pleaded in the written statement that the premises were not required bona fide by the landlord and the petition bad been filed with the object of getting the enhanced rent. The usual pleas regarding the landlord not being the owner of the premises and the premises having been let for purposes other than residence were taken. It was further pleaded that the accommodation in possession of the landlord was sufficient for his requirements. An additional plea was raised to the effect that the tenant on the barsati floor had vacated and a fresh tenant had been inducted during the pendency of the petition at an enhanced rent.