Tejinder Kaur Rana on the ground of bona fide requirement, and another petition filed by the mother of the landlord were dismissed.
Tenant resisted the eviction petition on many grounds.
It was companytended that there was numberrelationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and in any event the premises were let out for residential companymercial purposes as mentioned in the Lease Agreement executed between the parties on 1st September, 1971, and, therefore, he is entitled to grant of leave to defend.
It was, however, companytended that the principles of res judicata were number applicable, and there was numberbar on filing fresh petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement in the changed circumstances.
Reply to the application for grant of leave to defend was filed by the landlord, where he denied the allegations made, though he admitted that earlier petitions had been filed.
Rejoinder was filed by the tenant.
On 10.9.1999 landlord had filed the eviction petition alleging that he wanted the premises for his personal use, since the accommodation available to him was number suitable and he does number own any other property in Delhi.
Additionally, it was stated that the petition was mala fide and an abuse of process of law, barred by res judicata as earlier petitions filed by one Smt.
The respondent landlord filed a petition for eviction on several grounds primarily on the ground of personal requirements.
JUDGMENT Arising Out of S.L.P. C No.
Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of the Delhi High Court upholding decision of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in short the Rent Controller declining leave to the present appellant to companytest in a proceeding under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Before the Rent Controller an application was moved under Section 25 B of the Act by the appellant tenant for grant of leave to defend said eviction petition filed under Section 14 1 , proviso e of the Act, by the present respondent landlord.
Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.
21346/2001 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
