SAROJ KHEMKA Vs. INDU SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order of the Additional Rent Controller rejecting the leave to defend application of the Petitioner-tenant.

(2.) Mr. R.P. Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has vehemently contended that the Petition was bad for mis-joinder of I D Khernka, the husband of the Petitioner as he was not a tenant. Another contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner was that premises were taken for composite purposes i.e. residential- cum-non-residential purposes. Main stress of the arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioner was that the premises were not required by the Respondent bona fidely for her residence or for her family. Lastly it was contended by Mr. Bansal that the affidavit of property broker showing that the Respondent was interested in selling the property after getting it vacated from the present Petitioner has not been considered by the learned Additional Rent Controller while rejecting the application for grant of leave.

(3.) Learned Additional Rent Controller while disposing of the application of the present Petitioner had held that it was on account of the fact that Mr. I D Khemka was also claiming to be a tenant in the premises in question and was dealing with the Respondent along with his wife, Petitioner herein Smi. Saroj Khemka, therefore to avoid any complication/confusion both were impleaded as respondents in the eviction Petition. It has been further recorded by the learned Additional Rent Controller that along with the eviction Petition, Petitioner/Respondent had filed lease deed which was between the Respondent and I D Khemka, although the lease deed has been disputed by Mr. Bansal. No photocopy of the lease deed, which was sought to be filed in this Court dalcd 27.5.1995 was filed with the leave to defend application and same was filed after hearing of the arguments on the application for leave to defend were over: Therefore, there is no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioner that lease deed was forged and that Mr. I D Khemka was not a necessary party.