B K GUPTA Vs. SUDARSHAN CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller on an eviction petition filed by the respondent- landlord/owner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition.

(2.) Mr. Sabharwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has contended that the respondent was not the owner within the meaning of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. He has contended that as a matter of fact when the premises were let out to the petitioner in the year 1981, the respondent was merely a licensee and he could not have created the tenancy. Mr. Sabharwal has gone to the extent of arguing that as a matter of fact he could not have parted with the possession in terms of the original licence granted by the Delhi Administration in favour of the respondent.

(3.) Mr. Sabharwal further contended that the Delhi Administration further modified the policy and allotted such kind of premises to such licensees later on. What has been contended before me by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent for the purpose of getting such allotment, mis-represented to the Delhi Administration and after getting the letter of allotment the respondent was not entitled in terms of the policy of allotment to part with the possession of the premises in question. Mr. Sabharwal has further contended that there was a subsequent change of the policy by the Delhi Administration and according to that policy the occupant of such hire purchase premises were allotted the flats. He has contended that the petitioner filed the Civil Writ Petition No. 256/92 which was, however, dismissed on 18th November, 1987 but petitioner was permitted to make representation to the appropriate authority in terms of the policy. In terms of the order of the writ petition aforesaid, the petitioner made various representations to the Delhi Administration. As the petitioner has not heard anything he has filed another writ Petition No. 639/99 on 8th March, 1999. He has further contended that in view of the totality of circumstances, the contract was voidable at the instance of the Delhi Administration.