RAMA KRISHNA Vs. SIRI DHAR CARGO SECTION SITA WORLD TRAVELS
LAWS(DLH)-1983-2-14
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 01,1983

RAMA KRISHNA Appellant
VERSUS
SIRI DHAR CARGO SECTION, SITA WORLD TRAVELS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sultan Singh, J. - (1.)This revision under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act) challenges the judgment and order dated 25th October, 1982 of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the application for the eviction of the respondent without deciding whether the respondent-tenant was entitled to leave to contest the eviction application and also without recording any evidence of the parties. The Additional Rent Controller held that the eviction application was not maintainable on the basis of alleged admitted facts.
(2.)Briefly the facts are that the petitioners filed an application for eviction of the respondent alleging that the respondent was tenant of petitioner No. I at Rs. 450.00 per month with respect to a portion of the first floor of house No. E-14/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, that petitioner No. I is owner of the premises in suit let for residential purposes, that he bona fide required the suit premises for the residence of his family members dependent upon him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. The family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife, two sons and one married daughter having children. One of the sons is working in United Kingdom and comes to Delhi at least once in a year, and the other son employed with Sriram Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Jaipur has been transferred to Delhi since 2nd January, 1982. It is alleged that petitioner No. I is aged 74 years, and has lost his eye sight, that his wife (petitioner No. 2) is hard of hearing, that both are handicapped and want somebody else to live with them. The petitioners wanted their son Ravinder Kumar transferred to Delhi to stay with them. The son of the petitioners has got a daughter aged 15 years and son 12 years and another son aged 10 years. The petitioners further alleged that they have only two bed rooms besides dining and drawing room and a store, and that the accommodation for their son and his family is not sufficient with them.
(3.)The respondent by his application dated 18th February, 1982 sought leave to defend the eviction case. He has alleged that petitioner No. 2 is an unnecessary party, she being neither owner of the property nor landlady of the respondent, that petitioner No. I is also not the owner and has not disclosed the entire accommodation with him, that the accommodation with him is sufficient for his requirement, that the son has not been transferred to Delhi. In fact all the allegations contained in the eviction application have been denied. The leave to defend application is supported by an affidavit. Reading the entire application it cannot be said that the respondent-tenant is not entitled to leave to defend the eviction case. Reply to this application was filed on behalf of the petitioners denying all allegations of the tenant and explaining their claim. The Additional Rent Controller did not decide if the tenant was entitled to leave to defend, but by the impugned order dated 25th October, 1982 dismissed the eviction application. He held that the petitioners obtained an order of eviction against another tenant who had undertaken or agreed to vacate the premises upto December, 1984. He has observed that the present eviction application is an abuse of the process of the Court.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.