BATLIBOI LIMITED Vs. KIRAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent is the landlord qua the petitioner in respect of property described as N-197-A, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi, it having been let out in the year 1976 by his mother. He had filed a case (E. No.26/2015) for eviction on 08.04.2015 on the ground of bona fide need under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Having regard to the nature of ground invoked, the procedure under Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was applied. In response to the special summons served on the petitioner (tenant), it submitted an application for leave to contest. The said application was considered by the additional rent controller (ARC) but dismissed by order dated 15.10.2015, resultantly granting an order of eviction in favour of the respondent. It is the said order, the correctness, legality and propriety whereof is questioned by the petition at hand.

(2.) Though a number of grounds have been taken in the application for leave to defend, having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having gone through the record, this court finds that a case of grant of leave is made out on the issue of alternative accommodation, there being lack of clarity in the pleadings of the respondent rather there being a possibility of an attempt to suppress faces.

(3.) For aforementioned purposes, it is not necessary to narrate the facts in entirety. Suffice it to note here that the case from which the present proceedings arise is third in a series of litigation initiated by the respondent to seek eviction of the petitioner, the first one being an eviction case, also on the ground under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, brought before the rent controller in September, 1997 by the petitioner and his sister Ms. Usha Devi. Both the petitioner and his sister had conceded in the said case that the tenancy, being at the rental of Rs.1265/- per month, was protected under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petitioner therein had described himself to be then a resident of Sri Lanka, though he had also given his local address (42, Birbal Road, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014), his sister being described as a resident of Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. The said eviction petition came to be dismissed in default on 14.09.2000. Concededly, there was no effort made for its restoration. Instead, the respondent filed a civil suit in 2013 in the court of District Judge for South-East District, seeking decree of possession and recovery of rent and mesne profits. Prior to filing of the said suit, a legal notice dated 06.06.2012 had been served on the petitioner (tenant) on instructions of the respondent and at his instance. In the said legal notice, he was described as a resident of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia with permanent address being as that of the said property. In the said legal notice it was, inter alia, stated that the respondent is a resident of Malaysia and none of the legal heirs of Mrs. Sumitra Devi Sharma (the late mother of the respondent) are residing in India, the tenant (the petitioner) taking advantage of this and enjoying the prime property at a meager rent of Rs.1265/- per month. By the legal notice, the tenant was called upon to execute a fresh lease deed at a rental of Rs.1,00,000/- per month for the period of one year, the existing tenancy having been terminated on 30.06.2012.