HUKAM SINGH Vs. JAGJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions under sub-section (8) of Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, for short, the Act, by. two occupants of different portions of the same building, belonging to the respondent, assail a common order of the Controller by which, while refusing them leave to contest petitions for their eviction, they have been ordered to be evicted from the premises in their respective occupation.

(2.) The respondent, who is admittedly a public servant, in occupation of Government accommodation allotted to him by virtue of his A employment, sought the eviction of the petitioners under Section 14A(1) of the Act on the ground that by a general and a special order, mad by Government, the respondent has been required to vacate the Govrqment commodation or in default to pay penal rent, and that this entitled the respondent to evict the petitioners, as the respondent was B the owner of the property. Leave to contest the petitions was sought inter alia, on the ground that each of the premises had been let out for a residence-cum-commercial purpose. The petitioner in C.R. 400 of 1977 justified leave on the further ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Leave was declined on the ground that the purpose of letting was irrelevant so long as the premises were of a residential nature, a fact which is not in dispute. The additional ground urged by the petitioner in C.R. No. 400/77 was repelled on the ground that according to the house tax records and the electoral rolls, the petitioner had throughout been in occupation of the premises and was, therefore, prima facie a tenant.

(3.) At the hearing, leave to defend was mainly sought to be justified on the ground that subsequent to the impugned order, there had been a change in Government policy and that in terms of the revised policy, the respondent was entitled to continue in Government accommodation without incurring the obligation to pay more than the usual rent, and that on account of this subsequent event, the eviction of the petitioners could not possibly be justified under Section 14A(1) of the Act, and that, in any event, the various questions arising out of the revised policy, the interpretation of its terms and its impact on the rights and obligations of the parties, deserved to be considered at the trial of the petitions for eviction thereby entitling the petitioners to the leave. Leave to contest was further sought to be justified on behalf of the petitioner in C.R. No. 400/77 on the ground that the question as to the relationship of landlord and tenant required investigation in that there was no material on either side which may indicate the existence of such a relationship and that the admitted occupation of the premises by the petitioner over the years did not by itself constitute any proof, prima facie or otherwise, of the requisite relationship.