In the said proceeding, the appellant filed an application under Section 25 B of the Act seeking leave to companytest the prayer for eviction.
In paragraph 4 of the petition, it was specifically averred that the petitioner respondent herein has number put the respondent in possession as tenant but vide an agreement to sell after receiving full and final payment.
The respondent shall be at liberty to resist the same by taking out proceedings in accordance with law.
Subsequently, it transpired that due to some difficulty the sale deed companyld number be executed.
File be companysigned to RR.
It was also averred in the petition that the petitioner was trying to take fraudulent advantage of issuing two cheques to the respondent appellant herein by saying that it was a refund of the sale companysideration.
The operative portion of the order is extracted hereinbelow The pleas which have been raised by learned companynsel for the petitioner are already being examined by Civil Court for which the petitioner will be at liberty to move for appropriate orders of stay or directions in respect of alleged dispute between the parties.
The parties are related to each other.
The application filed by the appellant under Section 25 B was rejected and the petition filed by the respondent for eviction of the appellant was allowed vide the order dated 20th March, 1998 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.
On receiving numberice, the appellant filed the application under Section 25 B of the Act accompanied by an affidavit in which it was stated inter alia that on the face of even admitted facts the case pertains to a dispute over ownership and number a dispute as regards landlord and tenant.
According to the appellant, there was numberquestion of any refund of companysideration.
The proceedings before the Rent Controller was initiated on the application filed by the respondent under Section 14 1 e of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for short the Act seeking eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for occupation by himself and his family members.
From the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller it appears that he proceeded on the assumption that the appellant had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
It was alleged in paragraph 5 of the petition that the alleged tenancy is a figment and fiction of the mind of the petitioner which does number exist at all that numberhing whatsoever has been prima facie shown that the ownership was overnight turned into tenancy.
Unfortunately, the Additional Rent Controller failed to read the petition and the affidavit companyrectly which resulted in the mis conceived idea about the case of the appellant.
This mis conception vitiated the entire order.Hence, this appeal.
An agreement was entered between the parties on 1.11.1985 for sale of the property by the respondent to the appellant for companysideration of Rs.49,000/ , out of which a sum of Rs.45,000/ was paid by the latter to the former as part payment of companysideration and the appellant was put in possession of the property.
Thereafter, the appellant companytinued to occupy the premises as a tenant w.e.f.
The sum received towards companysideration was returned by the respondent to the appellant.
It was also alleged that the petition was false and fraudulent and there is numbercause of action in favour of the petitioner.
The present petition, in view of the above, is dismissed with the liberty as aforesaid.
1.11.1993.
The Revision Petition filed by the appellant against the said order was dismissed by the High Court by the order dated Ist September, 1998.
It was the further case of the respondent that he required the premises for occupation by himself and members of his family and, therefore, an order for eviction of the tenant may be passed.
The case of the respondent as appears from the averments in the eviction petition is that he is the landlord of the premises in question and the appellant is his tenant.
The appellant is the nephew of the respondent.
The companye question that arises for determination in this case is whether the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was right in refusing leave to companytest the prayer of eviction to the appellant.
The dispute relates to the property No.5A/11004, Gali No.7, WEA Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi, which is a residential premises.
P. MOHAPATRA, J LITTTTTTTJ Leave granted.
