OM PRAKASH Vs. DEV RAJ KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has felt aggrieved because of having not been granted leave to defend the petition of eviction filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act).

(2.) Shri Dev Raj Kohli, respondent herein had sought the eviction of this petitioner from premises bearing No. 5/19, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi. The grounds seeking eviction were namely, (i) the family of the landlord consisting of himself, his son, son's wife and son's three daughters in the age group of 21, 19 and 14 years respectively needed better (sic.). The two grand daughters were college going and the youngest school going; (ii) that the respondent-landlord was 73-74 years old at the time of filing the petition. He found climbing stairs difficult. He being quite weak, old and frail found difficult to climb the stairs; (iii) that landlord had been living in a rented accommodation on the first floor of house No. 2046/39, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. That accommodation consisted of three small rooms, one kitchen, bath room and latrine. That accommodation was not sufficient for himself and the members of his family. He required minimum five rooms to accommodate his grown up grand daughters, son and his wife and himself. Beside five living rooms he also needed a drawing and dinning room and a guest room. House in possession of present petitioner being on the ground floor was more convenient and suitable to the landlord/respondent.

(3.) It was in the above background eviction was sought. Present petitioner sought leave to contest on the ground, (i) that the eviction was sought in order to put pressure to increase the rent. The respondent/landlord has been in the habit of getting the tenants evicted and thereafter reletting the premises on higher rent; (ii) premises was let out to the petitioner on 17th April, 1979 under Section 21 of the Act, by misrepresenting the facts and committing fraud on the tenant as well as on the Rent Controller. In the petition under Section 21 of the Act respondent/landlord had represented that his son was away to America. He should be coming back after 3 years. In fact that was misrepresentation of fact. That landlord has only one son who never went to America. Hence the question of his coming back after three years did not arise; (iii) that the agreed rent in April, 1979 was Rs. 1,300.00 per month. After expiry of three years under threat from landlord to increase the rent or vacate the premises, the petitioner increased the rent to Rs. 1,650.00 per month w.e.f. 1st April, 1982. Again rent was raised to Rs. 2,000.00 per month w.e.f. 1st April, 1985. From 1st April, 1988, the petitioner started paying rent at the rate of Rs. 2,300.00 per month and Rs. 2,700.00 per month w.e.f. 1st April, 1991. The petitioner has been paying enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 2,700.00 till 31st March, 1994 under pressure. Thereafter the respondent/landlord wanted the petitioner to increase the rent to Rs. 5,500.00 per month. This was not agreed to by the petitioner. As a retaliation eviction petition was filed; (iv) as regard bonafide need, house in possession of respondent at Karol Bagh is more convenient because it is situated on the first floor of the premises on the ground floor on which the respondent has been running a chemist shop. The residence of the landlord is just above the shop, where he has been residing with his family for a long time. In the tenanted premises at Karol Bagh respondent with family had been residing much prior to letting the suit premises to the petitioner; (v) landlord being an old man, running a chemist shop in the same premises would be (sic.) every day from Punjabi Bagh to Karol Bagh; Finally (vi) the respondent concealed the material fact about the actual accommodation in his possession at Karol Bagh. He deliberately did not mention the second floor in his occupation at Karol Bagh. Accommodation on top floor consisted of two bed rooms, bath, latrine, kichen, adding this accommodation with the accommodation available on the first floor, under his occupation consisting of three bed rooms, it is apparent that the respondent has sufficient accommodation with him and he does not require the accommodation bonafide.