SANWAL RAM AGARWAL Vs. GIANWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision Petition Nos.900/94 and 18/97. The first petition arises out of the judgment dated September 5, 1994 passed by Shri N.K.Goel, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by which an application of the petitioner for leave to defend was dismissed and an order of eviction was passed in favour of the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises. The second petition, Civil Revision 18/97 challenges the order dated 8/11/1996 dismissing an application of the petitioner for staying the proceedings under Section 14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') in view of the pendency of the first petition in this Court.

(2.) The respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act in respect of the tenanted premises. Summons in the prescribed proforma were issued to the petitioner and an application under Section 25B(5) for leave to defend along with an affidavit was moved wherein the petitioner pleaded that the petition had been filed as a pressure tactic and with a sinister design to pressurise the petitioner to increase the rent. The premises in question were let out to the petitioner on 12/8/1962 and since then the petitioner has been utilising and staying in the same as well as carrying on his activities. The premises are being used strictly in terms of the agreement of letting and one room all along is being used for commercial activities as per the permission granted by the respondent in the rent agreement dated 12/8/1962. It is further alleged that the respondent is an old lady and she is staying with her husband who has his own business of lending money and is in a comfortable situation, the son of the respondent is also engaged in the business of manufacture of wall colours and his business is flourishing, he is self-sufficient and has a huge income and is self-dependent, that none of the family members of the respondent are dependent upon her and she has the entire first floor and the Barsati floor under her occupation. The respondent, therefore, has sufficient accommodation for herself and her entire family. The respondent has two rooms on the ground floor near the stair-case which are under her occupation and which are lying locked and are not being used by her. She is residing with her family in the first floor only having sufficient accommodation for the entire family and she is not using the Barsati floor on which she has a room and a toilet and the said Barsati floor is also lying locked. The petitioner made further averments that the respondent and his representative insisted to increase the rent on the basis of the present market value of the property which is very high and as the petitioner did not increase the rent, the respondent filed the instant petition to pressurise him so that the petitioner succumbed to this illegal demand. The need and requirement of the respondent is, therefore, not genuine and bona fide and the eviction petition has been filed merely as a device to coerce the petitioner to increase the rent. As a consequence, it was prayed that leave to defend the petition be granted.

(3.) The averments made by the petitioner have been denied and it is stated that the premises in dispute are only used for residential purposes and no commercial activity is carried therein and as per the terms of the Agreement the petitioner has merely allowed to use one room for his personal office which does not tantamount to commercial letting. It was also denied that the husband of the respondent was doing the business of money lending. The extent of accommodation as canvassed by the petitioner was denied for which a reference was made to the site plan filed along with the petition. It was also denied that the respondent was not using the Barsati floor on which a room and toilet had been constructed and it was lying locked and vacant. The petitioner, admittedly, did not file any counter plan to show that any other accommodation existed in the premises apart from the one as specified by the respondent. It was also denied that the respondent ever asked the petitioner or his representative to increase the rent on the basis of the prevailing market value of the property and none of the property dealers ever visited the premises nor the respondent ever asked or contacted any property dealer for some of the premises in dispute. It was denied that the need and requirement of the respondent was not genuine and bona fide and the instant petition had been filed merely as a device to coerce the petitioner to increase the rent.