T B JAIN Vs. SAVITA RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred to challenge the order dated 28. 04. 2007 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC), Delhi in E-563/07/05 filed by the respondent landlady under Section 14 (1) (e) read with section 25b of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act) whereby the learned ARC has dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking leave to defend holding that no triable issue has been raised, and has passed an eviction order against the petitioner. The petitioner is a tenant in the tenanted premises comprising of a two rooms set on the first floor of property bearing No. 40/1, Shakti Nagar, delhi. No issue with regard to the ownership of the respondent, the relationship of landlord and tenant and the purpose of letting being residential was seriously raised either before the Rent Controller or before me by the petitioner.

(2.) IT is not disputed that on the first floor of the said property, there are two independent two bedroom units, one of which is let out to the petitioner and the other is lying vacant and is available with the respondent. The husband of the respondent is the Senior General Manager (Finance) with the Power Finance corporation and presently the respondent is residing with her family in a tenanted two bedroom accommodation in Masjid Moth taken by her husband on lease. The family of the respondent consists of herself, her husband, one son-who was around 14 years of age at the time of filing of the eviction petition in 2005, and one college going daughter. The father-in-law of the respondent sometimes resides in Chennai and sometimes in Delhi. The respondent also has two married sisters-in-laws (husband's sisters) and two brothers-in-laws (husband's brothers ). The minimum requirement of the landlady was stated to be of four rooms apart from other living areas, such as drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and toilet.

(3.) MR. R. K. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submits that while deciding the application seeking leave to defend, the learned ARC has gone into the merits of the defence. He submits that the ARC was only required to examine whether the defence disclosed by petitioner raised any triable issues, and if it did, the petitioner ought to have been granted the leave. He submits that the learned ARC has conducted a pre-trial, and without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to file his written statement or to lead evidence in support of his defence, the defences raised by the petitioner have been rejected.