SHANKAR LAL Vs. THAMBU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the Rent Controller passed on 4.6.99 declining the leave to contest the eviction petition. He has further contended that inspite of the fact that the petitioner has filed a Site Plan showing that the accommodation available with the respondent was sufficient, that Site Plan was not taken into consideration for the purpose of granting leave to contest the eviction petition.

(2.) Another contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order suffers from illegality as the Rent Controller has taken the requirement of an office for both the sons whereas under Section 14(1 )(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act it is the requirement of the owner/landlord for the purpose of residence for himself or for dependent members of his family which ought to have been taken into consideration by the Rent Controller. He also contended that the Supreme Court judgment in Dr. S.N. Mehra Vs. D.D. Malik arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 236 dated January 11, 1990 was also brought to the notice of the Rent Controller but she has not taken into consideration the said authority of the Supreme Court. I do not find any force in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Here is a tenant who has denied every averment of the owner/landlord. He has denied the extent of the family members but has nowhere stated as to how many members were there in the family of the landlord. There was an averment in the eviction petition that one of the daughters namely Sharda has become widow. Copy of death certificate of son-in-law was filed by the respondent. Still, the petitioner has chosen to deny the factum of the daughter of the petitioner becoming widow.