Roshan Lal Gijpa v. AMU'/XNAND

0 R 1) E R 19.08.2011 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order of the learned trial Court granting leave to the respondent-tenant to contest the eviction petition filed against him in respect of the tenanted premises under Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Reni Control Act as well as copies of the eviction petition, leave application of respondent-tenant and reply thereto filed h> the petitioner-landlord. It is the admitted case of the petitioner-landlord that first floor of his propert} in Suh/i Mandi. of which the suit premises forms part, was let out by him only in the year 2009 and thereafter, in the year 2010 he filed the present eviction petition against the respondent-tenant in respect of the premises in his occupation on the third floor. If actually the petitioner required the premises in question he would not have let it out to the respondent in the year 2009. The petitioner had not disclosed in his eviction petition that the property in Kamla Nagar where he was presently living is a four storeyed house out of which two lloors arc owned by him. When the respondent-tenant stated in his leave application that he was already having sufllcient accommodation in the property in Kamla Nagar comprising ol three rooms on each lloor the petitioner disclosed m his reply that the ground floor of that property belonged to his son while other RC.RLV. 321/2011 2011:DHC:15838 lloors v\crc owned by him and were occupied by his son. It has been admitted toda\ by the ct)unsel for the petitioner that aiter first and second doors of the property in Sab/i Mandi were vacated by the tenants the same are lying vacant and have not been occupied by petitioner till date. In these circumstances, the respondent-tenant is entitled to get leave to contest the eviction petition and has been rightly granted that relief by the trial Court. This revision petition being, thus, devoid of any merits is dismissed in 1inline. P.K. BHASIN/J AUGUST 19, 2()n/pg