Pokardas Varan Dani vs Ramesh Sethi
1983 Latest Caselaw 252 Del

JUDGMENT

M.L. Jain, J.

(1) The premises in dispute were let out in June, 1970. On 4.3-1980 the landlord filed an eviction application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenant applied for leave to contest. The learned Addl. Controller by his order of 27-10-1980 allowed leave but simultaneously dismissed the petition because on the admitted facts of the case the requirement was not found to be bona fide. Hence, this revision.

(2) It is urged at the out set that the learned Addl. Controller had adopted a very wrong procedure. Having allowed leave to defend, he could not have dismissed the application. He should have asked the tenant to file a reply and then allowed the parties to go to trial. At any rate, he could have rejected and not dismissed the application. I have considered this argument. I do not see any material difference would occur if in place of dismissing the application, it was rejected. I also see no objection to the application being disposed of at the stage it was done, because the same order could be passed even without granting leave to defend. It could be done so even after obtaining leave if the tenant could show that the ground of eviction was not at all made out upon the allegations in the application. I, therefore, reject this objection.

(3) Now, as to bona fide requirement, it is said that the landlord had three bed rooms and one drawing room. His family comprised of himself and his ailing wife. He has two sons and two daughters, who are all married and are living separately. He has two more sons who live with him and one of whom has also since then married. He wanted more accommodation because his wife was ailing and one of his daughters was required to live with him to look after her mother as there was no woman member in the family to attend upon her. Since then a daughter-in-law has been added to the family and the ailing wife has expired. If there was at any time any requirement for the reason stated as aforesaid, it has since then ceased to be there. I, therefore, do not find anything in the impugned order which is not ia accordance with law and may invite interference by this court. The revision is dismissed. No costs. (D.B.)