UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAVINDER SINGH JOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') challenging the eviction order dated April 30, 1985, of Shri Prem Kumar, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, made on the ground of' eviction covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.

(2.) . The facts, in brief, are mat the petitioner is the tenant in the premises No. 161329, Khajoor Road Karol Bagh, New Dielhi. The premises had been lei out since December 21, 1970, to the Delhi Administration for running a child care centre. The respondents filed the eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement for residence. The petitioners tiled the application seeking leave to depend. Alongwitn the application the affidavit of one Shri Sri Pal, S.A.S., of Directorate of Social Welfare was filedIn the leave to defend application various pleas were taken that the landlords did not bona fide require the premises in question for occupation as residence for themselves or for their family members dependent upon them inasmuch as the respondents have been asking the petitioner to increase the rent and in this connection the landlords had sent a letter dated June 21, 1980, requiring the petitioners to enhance the rent by Rs. 41- per sq. ft. It was also pleaded that the premises had not been let out for residential purpose only and in fact, the same had been let out for office purposes as well and thus, the ground of bona fide requirement was not available to the landlords. The. Additional Rent Controller gave the finding that no proper affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners and thus the leave to defend application has to be ignored. He has also given a binding on merits that the pleas raised in the leave to defend application do not disclose any triable issues and thus, he dismissed the said application and passed the impugned order.

(3.) . It is true that leave of defend application has to be moved by the tenant and an affidavit has to be filed by the tenant but in the present case admittedly the tenant is Delhi Administration through its Director, Social Welfare. Sri Pal was an employee working in the Social Welfare Department. In order to remove the objection, the Director, Social Welfare Department also filed an affidavit mentioning that he had authorised Sri Pal to file the leave to defend application. I do not think that leave to defend application should have been rejected on the ground that initially no authority was shown from the Director of Social Welfare authorising Sri Pal to file the affidavit in support of the application. The defect, if any, with regard to an authorised person on behalf of the tenant not filing affidavit came to be cured when Director, Social Welfare, later on ratified the affidavit of his subordinate. It is really surprising that the Additional Rent Controller should have rejected the leave to defend application when some material facts have been peaded which if had remained unrebutted would have disentitled the landlords to get eviction of the petitioners on the ground of' bonafide requirement. The material fact pleaded is that the premises had not been let out for residential purposes only. It is admitted case that the premises have been used for running a child care centre and it was the case of the petitioner that for running that child care centre an office has been also opened in the premises in quesion. It was also the case of the petitioner that the landlords have asked for the increase in rent and they had set up this ground of bonafide requirement with a view to put pressure to have the rent increased. Both these pleas of the petitioner did not disclose triable issues and thus, it was a fit case where leave to defend should have been granted.