RAES KHAN Vs. SIRI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, Siri Chand retired as Mason from the Central Public Department (CPWD) on 31st January, 1993. He owned House No. 454/B, Kalkaji, New Delhi, which was given on rent to this petitioner on 1st November, 1987 on a monthly rent of Rs. 900.00 . After retirement, the respondent herein filed a petition of eviction against the petitioner under Section 14-C of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) as a classified landlord. Leave to contest was granted to this petitioner. He contested the eviction petition. Parties led evidence. Vide the impugned order the learned Additional Rent Controller passed the eviction order in favour of the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner has assailed the impugned order primarily on the grounds that the petition under Section 14-C of the Act having not been filed one year before retirement of the respondent hence was not maintainable. Secondly, the respondent had entered into an agreement with the petitioner which entitled the petitioner to become owner of the superstructure on respondent failing to refund the amount paid and spent by the petitioner. Since the respondent failed to repay the amount as per agreement hence the petition for eviction stood debarred by virtue of that agreement. Finally the petition for eviction was an abuse of the due process of law.

(3.) To appreciate the challenge raised by the petitioner, let us first examine what Section 14-C of the Act says. Section 14-C of the Act gives right to recover immediate possession of premises to Central Government Employee on his fulfilling certain conditions. Those conditions are, (i) premises was let out by him; (ii) the same is now required by him for his own residence; (iii) he must have been an employee of the Central Government or Delhi Administration; and (iv) he stood retired and finally the petition is filed within one year from the date of his retirement or within one year from the date of commencement of the Act. Such an employee has an option to seek eviction prior to the date of his retirement provided he has a period of less than one year proceeding the date of his retirement. Now to understand as to whether the respondent fulfilled the essential ingredients of Section 14-C of the Act, let us examine in quick succession the facts of this case.