N N KHANNA Vs. LEELA MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the tenant under Sub-section (8) of Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1953 (Act 59 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is directed against the order dated 7th May, 1977 of the Rent Controller refusing leave to the tenant to contest the petition for eviction. The rent Controller made an order for recovery of possession of the suit premises in favour of the landlady and gave six months' time to the petitioner within which to hand over vacant and peaceful possession. The rent Controller while disposing of the matter observed as follows :

(2.) The brief facts are that in August, 1970 Mrs. Leela Malhotra, owner-landlady of property No. C/26, Defence Colony, New Delhi let out the ground floor to Shri N.N. Khanna, for residential purposes. On 29th July, 1976 she gave a notice terminating the tenancy alleging that the premises are required bonafide for her residential use and also for the members of her family dependent on her. Thereafter on 4th October, 1976 she filed an application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act seeking eviction of the tenant, on the ground that she bonafide required the premises for her own occupation and for the residence of her family members dependent on her. In the said application she further alleged that she was a widow and was suffering from various ailments including blood pressure and had suffered attacks of angina. That she was living on the first floor and found it difficult and inconvenient to climb stairs.

(3.) In view of the amendments made in the Act, and the addition of Chapter IIIA in 1976, the tenant filed an application with affidavit on 21st October, 1976 under Section 25-B(4^ of the Act staling the grounds on which he sought to contest the application for eviction and praying for grant of premission to contest the eviction application. He averred therein that the landlady had sufficient accommodation with her on the first floor consising of three-bed rooms, one dinning-cum-drawing room, two combined bath and latrine, kitchen and terrace, that she had no family member dependent on her and her daughter was married and her son living out of India. It was also asserted that to the best of belief of the tenant, the landlady was hale and hearty and not suffering from any disease which would compel her to reside on the ground floor. Fur- ther, in her notice dated 29th July, 1976 she did not mention anything regarding her illness. He would thus seek permission to get her examined by medical experts. That the eviction petition was malafide and had been filed with a view to increasing the rent.