D RANI PURI Vs. CHANAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against an order of eviction passed under Section 14(1 )(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the 'Act' for short).

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under: According to the landlord/respondent, the petitioner is a tenant in respect of four rooms, kitchen, bath on the ground floor of premises No. H-22, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 300.00 for the purpose of residence. The landlord/respondent claimed that he requires the premises bona fide for occupation of his residence and the residence of his family members dependent upon him, since he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. According to the respondent/landlord, the family of the petitioner comprised of 12 members, i.e. petitioner, his wife, his elder son Ashok Kumar, second son Vinod Kumar, Som Parkash 15 years, Jawahar Lal 13 years, daughters Santosh of 11 years and Renu of 9 years. Petitioner wanted to marry Ashok, Vinod Kumar and Kamal Nain and therefore needed additional accommodation to accommodate him. Other children were studying. His oldest son Ashok Kumar is an Advocate and his other son Kamal Nain has also started business of commercial typewriting institute. The petitioner has accommodation as per site plan Ex. P.1, and he has no other suitable accommodation in his occupation. It is claimed that requisite notice to vacate the premises has already been given.

(3.) The eviction petition has been contested by the tenant/revision petitioner, inter cilia, on the ground that the petitioner earlier filed a Petition No. 696/70 under Section 14(l)(a) and (e) of the DRC Act and that petition was withdrawn after obtaining permission of the Court, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 50.00 on 27th September, 1973 but the said costs had not been paid. On 21st February, 1974, the petitioner filed another Eviction Petition No. 754/74 on the ground of bona fide need which was also withdrawn without obtaining any permission from the Court to file afresh. Since the present petition is based on the same cause of action, it is barredunderOrder23Rule I of Civil Procedure Code Nolegainotice has been served in accordance with the agreement dated 21st July, 1966. In addition to these two preliminary objections, it is also contended by the tenant/revision petitioner that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes for running the office of Bharat Publicity Service and East Punjab Printing Works. Claims of landlord/ respondent about his ownership of the property, his bona fide need and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation, have been denied. According to the petitioner, the respondent/landlord has under his occupation three-storeyed house No. 4497 Reghar Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi, three rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine on the ground floor and two rooms and terrace on the first floor in property No. D- 457, Raghubir Nagar and in occupation of three rooms, courtyard, kitchen, bath and latrine etc. in house No. D-167, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi. It is denied that his son Ashok Kumar is dependent on the petitioner and is living with respondent/ landlord. The tenant also has denied that the petitioner has a family of 12 members and that Ashok Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Kanwal Nain are dependent upon the petitioner for residential purpose. The respondent/landlord wants to let out the premises on higher rent in view of prevalent higher rates of rent and has been bringing the property brokers.