Skip to content


National Labour Institute and anr. Vs. Prem Chandra - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Appeal No. 1054 of 1980
Judge
Reported in21(1982)DLT216
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 25B
AppellantNational Labour Institute and anr.
RespondentPrem Chandra
Advocates: D.P. Bhandari,; H.M. Singh and; P.N. Gera, Advs
Cases Referred and Delhi Cloth & General Mills v. T.S. Bhntia
Excerpt:
- .....19-8-1980 of the rent controller, delhi dis. missing the petitioners-tenants' application for leave to defend and consequently passing an order of eviction under section 14(1)(e) of the act. (2) the respondent-landlady let out the ground floor of the property at plotb4/181, safdarjung enclave, new delhi to the petitioners namely national labour institute and dr. prayag mehta, dean of the said institute in july 1975 at a monthly rent of rs. 850.00 . the eviction petition was filed on 20-3-1980 alleging that she was the owner of the said property, that the premises were let out for residential purposes, that she required the premises for herself and for her two dependent children i.e. one son aged 13 years and one daughter aged 11' years. she alleged that she was residing in the house.....
Judgment:

Sultan Singh, J.

(1) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenges the judgment and order dated 19-8-1980 of the Rent Controller, Delhi dis. missing the petitioners-tenants' application for leave to defend and consequently passing an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.

(2) The respondent-landlady let out the ground floor of the property at plotB4/181, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi to the petitioners namely National Labour Institute and Dr. Prayag Mehta, Dean of the said Institute in July 1975 at a monthly rent of Rs. 850.00 . The eviction petition was filed on 20-3-1980 alleging that she was the owner of the said property, that the premises were let out for residential purposes, that she required the premises for herself and for her two dependent children i.e. one son aged 13 years and one daughter aged 11' years. She alleged that she was residing in the house of her mother and that she has asked her to vacate the premises so that she (mother) may have some source of income. The petitioner's application for leave to defend supported by an affidavit of Dr. Prayag Mehta, Dean in charge of the National Labour Institute raises various points. He claims leave to defend on the ground that the respondent-landlady has more than sufficient accommodation for her residence, that she wants to re-let the suit premises alter getting the same vacated, that a lease deed was executed on 27-10-1975 effective from 13-7-1975 at Rs. 850.00 per month between the respondent and petitioner No. 1, that she wrote a letter dated 26-3-1977 intimating that the rent in the area had gone up. In Other words she meant that there has been increase in the rate of rent. The tenants further allege that on 10-5-1977 the respondent wrote another letter to them asking them to increase the rent from Rs.850.00 to Rs. 1100.00 per month and in the alternative the tenants were asked to make alternative arrangements at the earliest. Besides this, the tenants allege that the first floor of the suit property B4/181, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi was let out to M./s. Mass Services Private Limited for the residence of its official Shri S.N. Rungta on a monthly rent of Rs. 800.00 with effect from 4-1 1-1977 for a period of two years, that after the expiry of the said period the first floor was let out under Section 21 of the Act in the personal name of Shri S.N. Rungta on enhanced rent at Rs. 935.00 for a period of three years with effect from 6-12-1977, that the said period was going to expire on 5-12-1980 and that the respondent would be entitled to obtain possession. The tenants further allege that the Barsati floor was in occupation of Shri Jarnail Singh at Rs. 500.00 per month, that the respondent demanded increase of rent from him, that the respondent has got vacant accommodation lying in house No. F-66, Green Park, New Delhi on a plot of land measuring 300 sq. yds. It is also alleged that the respondent is one of the co-owners of the said house. Further the petitioners allege that the house at B-6A, Vijay Nagar is in occupation of the respondent and that she is also one of the co-owners of the said house and thereforee, she cannot be asked to vacate the premises. In other words the plea of the petitioners is that respondent has a right to continue to occupy the premises at Vijay Nagar, Delhi. The petitioners further allege that residence of the respondent at Vijay Nagar was much more convenient to her than the residence at B4/181 Safdarjung Enclave, and thereforee, she would not occupy the suit premises after getting it vacated. The respondent in reply denied the various allegations made by the petitioners-tenants. The facts of letting of the first floor of the suit house to M/s. Mass Services Private Limited and Shri S.N. Rungta are not denied but she submitted that the allegations were not relevant. She further submitted that she was advised by the Doctor not to climb up stairs and a medical certificate dated 13-5-1980 of Dr. M.D. Gupta, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi certifying that her case was of 'C.A.D. with Cervical Spondylosis' was filed, that the Barsati floor was in occupation of Shri Jarnail Singh, that there was no question of enhancement of rent. She admitted that she became a co-owner of the house at F-66 Green Park, New Delhi but denied that she was in possession of any portion of the said house As regards house at Vijay Nagar she admits that she has become a co-owner ; her plea was that her widow mother required her to vacate the premises so that she may earn some income as she has no source of income for her livelihood, that the house at Vijay Nagar is the property of seven heirs. The Rent Controller as already stated refused to grant leave and hence this revision.

(3) The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed an additional affidavit of Dr. Prayag Mehta, petitioner deposing that the first floor of the suit house has been relet in December 1980 at an enhanced rent of Rs. 1125.00 to the said Mr. Rungta. The learned counsel for the respondent does not deny this fact. The petitioners case in short is that the respondent has got residential accommodation at Vijay Nagar house of which she is co-owner, that she has got vacant accommodation lying locked in her house at F-66 Green Park, New Delhi and that she has been letting out the first floor at enhanced rate of rent from time to time and that she does not suffer from the alleged ailments. The petitioners have filed two letters dated 26-3-1977 and 10-5-1977 referred to in the application and the affidavit for leave to defend. These letters are not denied by the respondent. Prima facie on the basis of these letters it can be said that the respondent was interested in enhancement of rent from Rs. 850.00 to Rs. 1100.00 for which she specifically wrote the letter dated 10-5-1977 and asked the petitioner to make alternative arrangements if they were not inclined to enhance the rent. The question regarding ailment of landlady is also disputed. All these questions of fact are disputed and if proved would not suit the respondent. The facts alleged are not vague but definite. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Smt. Bejoli Boy v. Amar Kumar etc. 1977 R.L.R. 464, Jitendra Singh Varma v. Manohar Lal Aggarwal, 1977 (2) R.C.J. 761, Dr. Shiv Nath Singh v. Piyare Lal Sharma : 15(1979)DLT46 , N.N. Khanna v. Mrs. Leela Malhotra : 15(1979)DLT97 , Vinod Kumar Malhoira v. S.L. Sehgal : 16(1979)DLT98 and Delhi Cloth & General Mills v. T.S. Bhntia, : 13(1977)DLT100 in support of his contention, that when there are disputed questions of fact and/ or law, the Controller has no alternative but to grant leave to defend to a tenant and that the tenant cannot be asked to produce material in support of his allegation in the application for leave to defend. The learned counsel for the respondent has not brought to my notice any authority contrary to the law laid down by this Court.

(4) I, thereforee, hold that the judgment and order dated 19-8-1980 of the Controller refusing leave to defend to the petitioners and passing an order of eviction was not in accordance with law and set aside the same. The petitioners-tenants are granted leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the respondent. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 23-2-1982. Parties are left to bear their own costs. .


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //