Yogeshwar Dayal, J.
(1) This petition under the proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 31st October, 1981 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, for leave to appear and contest the eviction application filed against her by the respondent.
(2) Shri P. N. Atreshi, respondent herein, filed an eviction petition on or about 13th October 1980 for eviction of the petitioner-tenant under clause (e) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act read with the provisions of Section 25-B of the Act.
(3) The case of the landlord-respondent in the eviction petition was that the premises were let out to the petitioner for residential purposes, of which the respondent is the owner and the premises are now required bona fide by the respondent-landlord for himself and for members of his family dependent upon him and that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation available with him. It was further case of the landlord respondent that his family consists of himself, his wife, one son and two married daughters. It was stated that one daughter Mrs. Kiran Kaushik is married and living in Delhi having one son and one daughter and whereas the other daughter Mrs. Rekha Sharma is living at Faridabad temporarily having one son and that the brother and widowed sister of the respondent landlord are also living in Delhi. It was also alleged that the landlord and his wife are aged persons, chronic patients and all the relatives come to see them. It was also stated that son of the landlord is also living in Delhi but cannot live with the landlord because of lack of accommodation. It was further stated in the ejectment application that the landlord has got one store in the premises and the petitioner does not allow the landlord to use it and the respondent-landlord is consequently forced to live with his son. It was further stated that the accommodation with the respondent-landlord is too small to live decently befitting his status of a retired gazetted officer. It was also stated that the wife of the landlord was operated upon on 9th October, 1980 at Safdarjang Hospital for suspected case of cancer.
(4) The petitioner-tenant contended the eviction application on various grounds. The relationship of landlord and tenant was not denied. The ownership of landlord is, however, disputed. It was also pleaded that the copy of the plan has not been supplied and the petitioner is the tenant in respect of the complete quarter bearing No. 19 Block No. 51, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, and the accommodation mentioned by the landlord is incorrect. It was further stated that since the petition relates to a part of the premises, it is not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the rent agreement was executed between the parties on 6th January, 1975 and the landlord has not intentionally given full particulars with a malafide object as the rent deed does goes against him, if he filed the same.
(5) The bona fide requirement of the landlord was inter alias challenged on the ground that the alleged family members are not at all dependent upon him. The respondent-landlord is residing outside Delhi at Dehradun at 326-A, Khurbara, Dehradun and is permanently settled there. It was further pleaded that the landlord owns the property at Dehradun and the tenant- petitioner has been sending the cheques by post at the aforesaid address to the landlord which have been acknowledged by the landlord for the last 2 to 3 years and the landlord has never settled in Delhi. It was further stated that the landlord recently came to Delhi on a casual visit and is staying with his son for the purpose of medical treatment. It was also stated that quarter bearing No. 741, Sector No. 8, R. K. Puram New Delhi, was previously alotted to the landlord. The landlord got the aforesaid quarter transferred in the name of his son who is also a Government servant and the landlord thereafter left Delhi and is staying, as stated earlier at Dehradun.
(6) It was the further case of the petitioner-tenant that the landlord has never lived in Delhi nor he has got any desire to live in Delhi. It was further stated that the present petition has been filed with the mala fide object of securing more rent.
(7) Further plea taken was that the landlord does not have good enough status as after his retirement, major source of his income is the rent on which the respondent-landlord is living. The tenant-petitioner is paying Rs. 320.00 per month and besides this the landlord is getting about Rs. 400.00 per month as pension, and after clubbing both these incomes the landlord can hardly afford to meet his daily needs and the present house is one of the source of his income.
(8) Regarding daughters it was stated that the daughters of the landlord are married and are living with their respective husbands at their respective places and they visit Dehradun occasionally. It was also stated that the son of the petitioner has been allotted the aforesaid quarter and is not dependent on the landlord for residence. Regarding Mrs. Rekha Sharma, it was stated that she is living at Faridabad. The fact that the brother and the widowed sister of the landlord are also living in Delhi was denied. It was also stated that even otherwise it is immaterial for the requirement of the landlord. It was further stated that it is incorrect that the accommodation with his son is insufficient for his needs. The illness of the landlord was also denied. In this situation it was further pleaded, that if the landlord is a chronic patient then naturally he has to stay with his son. Another plea about the alleged mala fide. intention was that the landlord had got the house vacated from the previous tenant of the premises in dispute on the ground of bona fide requirement. It was further stated that previously the tenant was paying Rs. 200.00 but under threat of eviction the rent was increased out Rs. 250.00 and after the previous tenant was evicted the premises were let out to the petitioner at Rs. 320.00 per month.
(9) During arguments, on behalf of the petitioner-tenant Mr. 0. N. Vohra, learned counsel, does not press for leave being granted on the question of entire premises having not been included in the petition for ejectment on behalf of the landlord.
(10) However, learned counsel for the tenant, presses for leave on all other grounds.
(11) The Additional Rent Controller has taken for granted the plea of the landlord that he has been living in Delhi inspire of complete addreis having been provided by the tenant is to where the landlord is living. This is not a matter which can be settled by-affidavits in the absence of reliable material. Even the ration card of the landlord is not on record to show if he is drawing ration in Delhi. Certain documents of Safdarjang Hospital have been filed which show that during April, 1980 the landlord was under treatment in Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. That material docs not show at this stage, that the landlord has been staying in Delhi.
(12) So far as the need of married daughters and the married son, who is already having government accommodation, are concerned, prima facie they are not dependent on the landlord for purposes of residence.
(13) Again the plea that the premises were earlier let to another tenant who was made to vacate the same by filing proceedings and was again let out to the present tenant on higher rent also requires trial.
(14) The method adopted by learned Additional Rent Controller in summarily deciding such petition inspire of the aforesaid pleas is totally a wrong approach.
(15) During the hearing Mr. Khurana, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the petition itself may be decided and leave may not be granted to the extent the concession has been made by Mr. Vohra on behalf of the petitioner in relation to the plea relating to partial eviction.
(16) Mr. Vohra, learned counsel for the petitioner, also concedes that he gives up the plea of want of notice of the termination of tenancy as provided under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and also does not press about the plea as to the ownership of the respondent-landlord.
(17) The plea of letting purpose being other than residential is not there.
(18) The result is that the leave is granted to the petitioner-tenant to contest the eviction petition on the grounds whether the respondent-landlord bona fide requires the premises in dispute for himself or member of the family dependent upon him and has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation available to him.
(19) During the hearing of the revision petition, the petitioner-tenant handed over a draft of Rs. 6,400.00 bearing No. ITA/14-322303 dated 13-5-1982 drawn on State Bank of India, R.K.Puram, New Delhi, to the landlord which according to the tenant covers the rent up to the end of May, 1982 but according to the landlord it covers the rent up to the end of April, 1982.
(20) Parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Rent Controller on 28th May, 1982 on which date the petitioner-tenant will file the written statement and thereafter the learned Additional Rent Controller will deal with the case with utmost expedition.