RAJINDER SINGH Vs. MANGE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 28.5.1997, passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi, in Suit No.E-39/97, refusing leave to contest to the petitioners and passing an order of eviction under Section 14-C of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The revision petition was admitted to hearing on 1.9.1997 and execution of eviction order was stayed.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present petition may be briefly noted:

(3.) The learned Additional Rent Controller held that the respondent/landlord was a Central Government employee, who retired on 31.5.1995. The learned Additional Rent Controller, while passing the impugned order, relied on Anand Saroop Vohra v. Bhim Sain, 1995 RLR 47, as well as Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India, 43 (1990) DLT 447, to hold that it was not permissible to permit the tenant to take pleas in the application for leave to contest on the same basis as available under Section 14(1 )(e) of the Act in cases of classified landlords. The classified landlords had been conferred with certain rights, which are different from and independent of the rights available to the general landlords under Section 14(1 )(e) of the Act. While dealing with a case under Section 14-B, it was held that it was not open to take up defences available under Section 14(l)(e) in an application under Section 14-B and that it was the duty of the Court to give effect to the intention of the Legislature while dealing with petitions under Sections 14-B to 14-D of the Act. The learned Additional Rent Controller, therefore, held that the contention of the petitioners, raising the issue of sufficiency or insufficiency of accommodation may be a relevant consideration under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act, but the same cannot be the basis for defence under Section 14-C of the Act. The learned Additional Rent Controller further held that there were no attendant circumstances warranting inference of lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner to occupy the premises in suit. He, therefore, proceeded to decline leave to contest to the petitioners/tenants and passed the impugned order of eviction.