SUBHASH CHANDER MARWAH Vs. JAGJIT SINGH SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 18th November 1986. Briefly the facts are these :- Apetition for eviction was filed by the landlord under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises in occupation of the tenant are bonafide required by the petitioner for himself and for his family members dependent on him. The case set up in the petition was that the petitoner is in occupation of a drawingcum-dining room and two bed rooms with attached bath rooms and two verandahs and a kitchen on the ground floor of property No. E-150, Greater Kailash Part-1. New Delhi. It was claimed that the said accommodation was not sufficient to meet the bonafide requirement of the petitioner and his family members dependent upon him. The eviction petition was filed in February 1983. At the time of filing the eviction petition the ages of two sons of the petitioner were 17 and 12 years respectively. Now the eldest son is 23 years old and the age of the younger son is 18 years. In the eviction petition the petitioner also claimed that his mother was also staying with him.

(2.) The eviction petition was resisted by the tenant respondent but the only ground pressed before the Additional Rent Controller was on the question of bonafide requirement of the petitioner and members of his family dependent upon him. The ownership of the petitioner and the purpose of letting was not disputed before the trial Court. The trial Court by the impugned order came to the conclusion that the petitioner has four bed rooms on the ground floor. The trial Court further came to the conclusion that the petitioner required one bed room for himself and his wife, one bed room for his mother and two bed rooms for his grown up children. The eviction petition was, however, dismissed as according to the Additional Rent Controller there were four bed rooms as contended by the tenant and not two bed rooms as contended by the petitioner.

(3.) The order of learned Additional Rent Controller is under challenge in this petition filed by the landlord. On 19th February 1987 this Court directed that notice to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted be issued to the tenant-respondent for 30th March 1987. On 30th March 1987 counsel for the respondent wanted time to complete the file and file answer to the show cause. The revision petition was accordingly adjourned to 6th May 1987 and it was specifically directed that it will be disposed of finally on the said date. On 6th May 1987, on a request made by counsel for the tenant, the case was adjourned to 12th May 1987. On 12th May 1987 also, the answer to show cause was not filed and the case was adjourned to the 20th May 1987. In between i.e. on 18th May 1987 answer to show cause was filed by the tenant- respondent. Thereafter, for one reason or the other the matter was adjourned from time to time for final disposal of the revision petition. Ultimately on 5th January 1988 Mr. R.S. Narula, learned counsel for the respondent, sought adjournment to seek instructions from his client to the effect as to whether he is willing to seek some time and give an undertaking to that effect to this Court for vacating the premises. On request of Mr. Narula the case was adjourned to 12th February 1988. It was made clear in the order that no further adjournment will be granted. However, the matter could not be taken up till 12th April 1988. On 12th April 1988 Mr. R.S. Narula, learned advocate then appearing for the respondent made a statement that the respondent will admit the bonafide requirement of the petitioner and will file an affidavit of undertaking to the effect that he will handover vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the petitioner on or before 30th day of April 1990, alongwith the usual clauses. The landlord will also file an undertaking that the property will not be alienated within this period. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 21st April 1988. However, the matter was taken up on 2nd May 1988 when counsel for the respondent expressed their desire to withdraw their vakalatnama. The counsel was directed to file an application. It was also directed that respondent should be present in court on 4th May 1988 when the application of the advocates alongwith the main revision petition will be taken up for final disposal. On 4th May 1988 the application filed by the advocates for permission to withdraw their vakalatnarna was placed before the court. The respondent was not present on 4th May 1988 inspite of the specific order dated 2nd May 1988. The Court directed the personal presence of the respondent on 19th May 1988 and it was directed that counsel may get their client available on the said date. Summons were also directed to be issued to the respondent to be present in person in Court on 19th May 1988. On 19th May 1988 Mr. J.M. Lal, advocate, appeared for the respondent. The earlier counsel appearing for the respondent were permitted to withdraw from the case. The respondent was again not present on 19th May 1988. On request of Mr. Lal the case was adjourned to today.