LAWS(DLH)-2008-8-150

BHARAT BHUSHAN VIJ Vs. ARTI TECKCHANDANI

Decided On August 08, 2008
BHARAT BHUSHAN VIJ Appellant
V/S
ARTI TECKCHANDANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order dated 5. 3. 2008, the Additional Rent Controller, delhi allowed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control act in favour of the respondent in respect of property No. 123, First Floor, New rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order on the ground that the learned ARC went wrong in not considering other defence raised by petitioner on the ground that the leave to defend granted to the petitioner/respondent was limited to the question of bonafide requirement. The petitioner relied upon Precision Steel and Engineering Works and Anr. V. Prem Deva, Niranjan Deva Tagal AIR 1982 SC 1518 and S. K. Dey v. D. C. Gagerna 1984 (2)RCR 615.

(2.) THERE is no doubt that the learned ARC in her order observed that the leave to defend granted to the petitioner was restricted to the question of bona fide necessity and she considered only this aspect. However, this Court can consider in view of the evidence led by the parties, if really any other issue arose.

(3.) I consider that where a frivolous challenge is made to the title of the landlord contrary to settled legal position just to prolong the proceedings, such a challenge can be altogether ignored by the ARC. When a tenant takes a plea that the landlord, who had filed the eviction petition was not the owner of the premises, the tenant is obliged to disclose to the Court as to who was the owner of the premises and under whom he/she was tenant. In the present case, it is not disputed by the petitioner that the premises was purchased from erstwhile owner by Shri T. A. Teckchandani and Shri t. A. Teckchandani became the landlord owner of the premises. Smt. Aarti teckchandani, the landlady who filed the eviction petition for bona fide requirement was daughter-in-law of Shri T. A. Teckchandani and had been living at the ground floor House No. 124, New Rajinder Nagar. She claimed that the premises in question came to her by way of a Will left behind by Shri t. A. Tekchandani.