JITENDER JHA Vs. KIRAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is preferred to challenge the order dated 21st November 2006 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the application filed by the petitioner tenant seeking leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent control Act has been rejected and consequently an eviction order passed. The respondent had sought eviction of the petitioner from Janta Flat No. 43, Site II, ground Floor, Vikaspuri, New Delhi on the ground of bonafide requirement. Admittedly, respondent is the landlady/ owner of the aforesaid premises. The premises was let out to the petitioner on 6. 8. 1988 for residential purposes. The family of the respondent consists of herself, her husband, one son, studying at the time of filing the petition in second year of college and daughter studying in class 11. She further states that her parents are also dependent upon her for residence. The respondent herself is living in a tenanted premises at WZ-1391/23b, nangal Rai, New Delhi on the monthly rent of Rs. 2800 per month. The petition was filed on the basis that her son is now of marriageable age and needs a separate room. She further submitted that she could not finalize the matrimony of her son on account of paucity of accommodation. Her case was that after the eviction of the suit premises, her son could live in the said Janta Flat.

(2.) THE petitioner tenant filed his application seeking leave to defend and one of the primary contentions was that the landlady has earlier filed an eviction petition on the same ground of bonafide requirement which had been dismissed by the learned ARC on 4. 12. 2002. That petition had been filed in March 2000. It was contended that the earlier decision would operate as res-judicata and subsequent petition could not be maintained. It was also argued that the tenanted premises consists of only one room accommodation, which would not be able to accommodate the family of the respondent. The respondent was having a much larger accommodation available with her presently, though tenanted for her residence and the residence of her family. Consequently, the bonafide need of the respondent was disputed.

(3.) THE learned Additional Rent Controller considered these submissions and observed as follows: