Indrashan Sharma vs Prema Rastooi
1988 Latest Caselaw 36 Del

JUDGMENT

Sunanda Bhandare, J.

(1) C.M. 2752/87 in Cr (R) 745/87. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the limitation for filing a revision petition in a case like the present one is three years and not 60 days and, therefore, there is no delay in filing the revision petition. He further submitted that assuming the limitation is 60 days, even then there was sufficient reason for not filing the revision petition in time.

(2) From the facts stated in the application for condensation of delay I find that the petitioner could not file the revision petition earlier because the certified copy of the order was taken by another tenant in the same property. This other tenant has vacated the premises and settled the matter with the respondent-landlady and, therefore, he did not part with the certified copy of the order. The delay which has occurred, therefore, appears to be bona fide and not deliberate and the same deserves to be condoned. The application is thus allowed. C.R. (R) 745/87 & Cr (R) 544 & 574/87

(3) Since a very short point is involved in these revision petitions both the learned counsels for the parties agree that the revision petitions should be disposed of today itself. 222

(4) By these revision petitions the petitioners have challenged the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 6th March l987whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller rejected the applications for leave to defend filed by the petitioners tenants and ordered eviction of the petitioners on the ground that the premises in question are needed for bona fide use of the respondent landlady.

(5) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are 10 rooms in the building in question which were let out to different tenants by the respondent-landlady. She filed petitions for eviction against all the tenants on the ground of bona ride personal need. She however at present lives Along with her family consisting of her husband and three children in half a room tenanted by the respondent's mother-in-law. Her status, therefore, is such that she does not need all the 10 rooms for her bona fide personal use. Moreover, she has already got two rooms and a kitchen vacated from other tenants but she has not occupied those premises till now. It is, therefore, contended that the eviction petitions are filed only to get the rent increased and not for personal occupation.

(6) It is not disputed by the respondent that some rooms have fallen vacant but it is submitted that the respondent will be shifting to those premises very soon. Furthermore, since her family consists of herself, her husband, her three children and aged mother in law she will require more accommodation. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that at the moment the respondent is sharing accommodation with her mother-in-law. It is however submitted that an eviction order has been passed by the High Court against the mother-in-law and, therefore, she has to vacated the premises.

(7) The learned Additional Rent Controller rejected the applications for leave to defend on the ground that the allegations made by the petitioners are vague and no details whatsoever have been given by the petitioners. The law regarding grant of leave to defend is now well-settled in Precision Steel & Engineering Works & Another v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, . The Supreme Court has held that the application for leave to defend has to be decided on the basis of the affidavit filed by the tenant and if the affidavit discloses a friable issue, no proof is needed at that stage. In the present case. prima-facie it appears that the petitioners had made out a friable issue inasmuch as the petitioners have alleged that looking at the status of the respondent, she does not require all the rooms for her personal need. The Additional Rent Controller, therefore, was not right in rejecting the applications for leave to defend.

(8) I, therefore, allow the revision petitions and set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 6th March 1987. The petitioners tenants are granted leave to defend the petitions for eviction. The parties will appear before the trial court on 1st February 1988 for filing of written statement and further proceedings. The trial court is directed to dispose of the eviction petition as expeditiously as possible. No costs.