Shashi Pal Singh vs Gaitri Devi And Anr.
1999 Latest Caselaw 361 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Additional Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act ( for short 'DRC Act' ) dated

1.8.1998, the tenant has preferred this revision petition. Petitioner has contended that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was not the owner of the tenanted premises. There was no dispute with regard to the purpose of letting. The petitioner disputed the bona fide requirement of the respondent.

2. I have heard Ms. Sweta Singh, daughter of the petitioner, who contended that the sale deed dated 2.5.1994 in favour of respondent No. 1 was no sale deed in the eyes of law as the same was an unregistered document, total sale consideration was only Rs. 99/=, the same was purchased on 2.5.1974 on account of the fact that the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 2, the husband of respondent No. 1, was dated 1.7.1970 and for a consideration of Rs. 4500/ =. The learned Additional Rent Controller has returned the finding that the property No. 202-B, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi was purchased by the respondents pursuant to two sale deeds, sale deed dated 2.5.1974 was executed in favour of respondent No. 1 by which front portion of 60 sq.yds. was purchased by respondent No. 1 and 70 sq.yds. was purchased by respondent NO.2 vide sale deed dated 1.7.1970. The suit premises are constructed on a piece of land which was purchased by respondent No. 1, who was the owner/landlord in respect of the suit premises. There is finding recorded by the learned Additional Rent Controller and from the perusal of the sale deed, front portion of the suit property was purchased by respondent No. 1 and the suit premises is situated on the said portion and it has been clearly shown that Smt.Gaitri Devi, respondent No. 1, is the owner in respect of the suit premises. Shri R S Gupta, respondent No. 2, in his testimony as AW-4 has clearly clarified that the suit premises belongs to his wife, i.e. present respondent No. 1, and he has acted in respect of the suit premises as Attorney of respondent No. 1, therefore, there is no force in the arguments of Ms.Singh, daughter of the petitioner that there was no relationship of owner/landlord as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are wife and husband.

3. The next contention of Ms.Singh was that the respondent does not require the property Bona finely for the use of herself and her. family members. She has contended that the eviction petition was filed to coerce the petitioner to increase the rent. Petitioner has admitted that he is in possession of four rooms on the ground floor and one room on the first floor, which was the contention of the petitioner. The Additional Rent Controller has recorded that | - "Having regard to the total family of the petitioners, one room each is required by the petitioners, two rooms are required by the two sons besides one drawing-dining room and a guest room which implies that at least six rooms are required by the petitioners for himself and his family members."

4. In view of the fact that the respondents were in possession of five rooms, no infirmity with the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller can be found. Ms.Singh wanted this Court to reappraise the finding of facts arrived at by Additional Rent Controller. I am afraid that while exercising revisional jurisdiction where Legislature in its wisdom has not provided any appeal against the order of Additional Rent Controller, I will not reappraise the evidence brought on record before the Additional Rent Controller. There is no ground to interfere. Dismissed.