REFLEX INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD Vs. RAJINDER DEV CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC)dated 3rd January 2008 whereby he dismissed an application of the petitioner (hereinafter called the tenant) for leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the respondent (hereinafter called the landlord) under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (for short, "drc Act"), the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) IT is to be noted here that the relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute. The respondent, before filing of the eviction petition, sent a notice dated 11th January 2007 to the petitioner terminating the tenancy wherein the landlord claimed that the rate of rent was Rs. 3,993/- per month. The petitioner, in reply to this notice, asserted that the claim of the landlord was false and the rate of rent was Rs. 2,000/- per month only and hire charges for fittings and fixtures cannot be added to the rent to make it more than rs. 35,00/ -. The petitioner took a specific plea that the premises was governed by the provisions of DRC Act. In the notice itself, the landlord had told the tenant that he needed the premises for his own bonafide requirements as he was aged around 80 years. He was having pace-marker and he had also slipped from the stairs and he need to shift to ground floor to avoid climbing stairs to reach the first floor. The lift installed at the premises could not be used by him since it could accommodate only one person and he cannot take the lift unless accompanied by another person. He was a heart patient and a pace marker was installed upon him in February 2006. His wife also suffering from the heart problem. His son's right leg was amputated due to an accident and he also needed to reside at ground floor whenever on his visiting them. He, therefore, requested tenant to vacate the ground floor premises under its tenancy.

(3.) IN reply to the notice, the tenant took the stand that the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act was illegal. The rate of rent was rs. 2000/- per month. The need of the landlord was not bonafide. The tenancy was governed and fell within the purview of provisions of DRC Act.