LAWS(DLH)-1998-4-38

DALJIT SINGH Vs. CDR BIPIN KUMAR SHARMA

Decided On April 01, 1998
DALJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
CDR.BIPIN KUMAR SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who happens to be a tenant in the first floorof premises bearing Municipal No. E-116, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi, has filed thisrevision petition, against the order of eviction dated 30.5.1997, passed by thelearned Additional Rent Controller, under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-Bof the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) The facts, in brief, culminating in filing of the present revision petition, maybe noticed:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T'ger Singh, has assailed theimpugned order on the ground that the respondent is permanently settled atGhaziabad. He is gainfully employed there and that is why he has takenaccommodation at Ghaziabad at a monthly rental of Rs. 5,000.00 and not chosen totake accommodation, even on rent, anywhere in Gurgaon, Noidaor Delhi. LearnedCounsel submits that even before his retirement, respondent had negotiated andobtained employment in Ghaziabad and he continues to be gainfully employed andhas no reason or desire to shift therefrom. He submits that he is well-settled inGhaziabad and there is nothing by way of documentary evidence to show as to whyrespondent wants to shift to Delhi. It is his case that he has no intention to shift toDelhi. Respondent's son is stated to be studying at Delhi Public School at Ghaziabad.Alternatively, it is argued that if respondent wants to shift to Delhi, he hassufficient accommodation available on the ground floor of the premises in suit. Theold lady, who is around 72 years of age, requires only one room. It is stated that thestory about paying-guests is a concocted one and there is no permission taken to runthe guest house from the Munid pal and other authorities. The respondent, hithertobefore, never made any request, either before or after his retirement, for vacatingthe house, which showed that he had no intention to reside in the premises in suit.The eviction petition had been filed with the sole purpose of re-letting the premisesat a higher rate of rent.