Against that order, the appellant went up to the High Court in revision which set aside the order of the Rent Controller and the decree for eviction passed by him and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for permitting the appellant to defend the suit.
The eviction was sought for in respect only of the first floor and a portion of the second floor, the ground floor being occupied by the landlord respondent himself.
Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which having been dismissed, the appellant moved the High Court in revision which also was summarily dismissed and hence this appeal.
Furthermore, this point was specifically raised before the Controller and was negatived by him.
Thereafter, the appellant filed his written statement and took various pleas challenging the title of the respondent as also the bonafide requirement alleged by the landlord.
The property in dispute was originally evacuee property but subsequently the plaintiff respondent appears to have acquired the property in dispute from the custodian.
The plaintiff respondent had filed the petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of his bonafide requirement in respect of the premises which companysist of two rooms, one store room, open verandah, Courtyard, bathroom latrine, kitchen on the first floor and barsati on the second floor with open terrace.
The appellant filed an application before the Rent Controller for leave to defend the suit under the provisions of Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter to be referred to as the Rent Act but the Rent Controller rejected the application as it found that numberarguable points were raised in the defence by the appellants.
1291 of 1978 Kewal Singh v. Smt.
The Rent Controller, after taking the evidence of the parties as required under Section 25B, found that the plaintiff respondent had proved his case of bona fide requirement and companysequently passed a decree for eviction of the appellant.
Lajwanti dated 4.10.79 which has upheld the companystitutional validity of the Rent Act, the companytention regarding the vires of Section 25B of the Rent Act does number survive and was, therefore, given up.
Murtaza Fazal Ali.
The other companytention raised by Mr. Mahajan was that the companypetent authority under the Slums Act had only granted permission with respect to a portion of the premises in dispute and, therefore, a decree for eviction by the Controller companyld number have been passed for the entire premises.
J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Delhi dismissing an application in revision filed by the appellant before the High Court.
