R C JUNEJA Vs. PREM DASS BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi RentControl Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner (original respondenttenant) has been challenging the order dated 6.5.1995 refusing leave to contestunder Sections 25-B(4) & (5) of the Act in the proceedings under Section 14-C of theAct.

(2.) It is not disputed that the petition under Section 14-C of the Act came to befiled on 12.12.1996. The petitioner retired from the service of the Central Government with effect from 31.8.1997.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, thatthe first and second floors having four rooms and two rooms respectively, with aseparate water and electric connection is available with the respondent/ (originalpetitioner-landlord) and that the demand for eviction under Section 14-C of the Actis mala fide inasmuch as the respondent has not been completing the flooring andthe water and electric fittings and that it is an artificial scarcity/ need created for the purpose of evicting the petitioner from the demised premises inasmuch as thedoors, flooring and sanitary fittings are not provided malafide and that there is nonecessity for residence much less bona fide, as contemplated under Section 14-C ofthe Act; that since first and second floors is available, Section 14-C of the Act cannotbe invoked as the demand for additional accommodation is not contemplatedunder Section 14-C of the Act; that the first and second floors cannot be said nothabitable and, therefore, not available for residence to the respondent; that the contentions raised in the leave to contest suggest triable issues which requirescrutiny of evidence.