RUDRA DUTT SHARMA Vs. SOM NATH GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a separate order I have disposed of CR No. 612/1998. Boththe cases pertain to same premises. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition by theAdditional Rent Controller, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.Eviction petition was filed against the respondents under Section 14(l)(e) of the DelhiRent Control Act (for short 'DRC Act'). According to the petitioner, one room was letout to the respondent on 8.9.1981 @ Rs. 190.00 per month on the first floor. It is the aseof the petitioner that on 7.3.1982 a Verandah was also let out to the respondent-SomNath Ghosh and rent .from Rs. 190.00 was increased to Rs. 290.00. Respondent did notmake the payment of rent after February, 1983.

(2.) Respondent-Sorn Nath Ghosh filed a suit on 31.3.1983 claiming that he was thetenant not only in respect of one room and verandah but also another room in whichShobha Ghosh was a tenant. In the said proceedings, Sub-Judge held that "The suitpremises is wrongly described by the plaintiff. He is tenant of only one room andVerandah at the rate of Rs. 290.00 per month." That suit was dismissed by the Sub-Judgeon 21.1.1986. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the suit, respondent-Som Nath Ghoshpreferred an appeal which was also dismissed.

(3.) Not satisfied respondent-Som Nath Ghosh filed an application for fixation ofstandard rent claiming that standard rent of the premises should be fixed at Rs. 5.00 permonth. In the said application for fixation of standard, rent in spite of the fact that SomNath Ghosh's own suit whereby he claimed that entire first floor of the premises inquestion under his tenancy was negatived by the Civil Court, yet he maintained thesame in the new application for fixation of standard rent that the entire first floor wasunder his tenancy. That application was also dismissed. Mr. J.C. Mahindoo, learnedCounsel appearing for the respondent, has stated that appeal against the said order isstill pending before the Rent Control Tribunal.