K.L. Malik vs Shri Virender Kumar Verma & Ors.
1999 Latest Caselaw 854 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. The matter has been on the Regular Board for the last one week. Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner. I may dismiss the matter on account of non-prosecution. However, in view of the fact that eviction order was passed way back on 23.1.1991 on the ground of bona fide need under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, I would like to dispose of this petition on merit.

2. The purpose of letting has been admitted to be residential by the petitioner. However, the petitioner has disputed the ownership of the respondents. In view of the fact that sale-deed (Ex. AW 1/2) was brought on record, which was duly registered and executed in favour of Basant Lal Verma, the finding of the Addl. Rent Controller cannot be faulted. The property was bequeathed by the deceased Basant lal Verma to his wife Smt. Sushila Devi through Will dated 11.8.1988. Smt. Sushila Devi also died and left the property to her five sons by virtue of Will dated 5.5.1989. All the respondents were substituted in place of the deceased Basant Lal Verma, who was the original landlord of the property in question. Petitioner had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between deceased Basant Lal Verma and himself. In view of the fact that five sons of the deceased Basant Lal Verma were substituted as petitioners in the eviction petition, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the ownership of the property in question. Even otherwise, it has not been pleaded as to who else was the owner of the property in question.

3. It seems that the petitioner has taken stand that the property in question was not bona fidely required by the respondents. It was during the pendency of the proceedings that the original landlord Basant Lal Verma died. It has been stated that Eviction petition for bona fide requirement could not have been maintained by the sons of Basant Lal Verma as Basant Lal Verma died.

4. I do not find any merit in the pleadings of the petitioner. In the eviction petition filed by Basant Lal Verma it was specifically mentioned that he required the tenanted premises for his need as well as need of his family members dependent upon him. Evidence was brought on record to show that the premises were required by the respondents, who were the sons of deceased Basant Lal Verma. The size of the family of the respondents has also not been denied by the petitioner. Admittedly after the death of Basant Lal Verma and his wife, the five sons of the respondents have a family of 23 members whereas admittedly accommodation available in the hands of the respondents are seven rooms. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that seven rooms can accommodate the five married sons, who have got their children. Therefore, the contention in the petition regarding bona fide requirement of the respondents is also not tenable.

5. Learned Addl. Rent Controller has also discussed in paragraph 11 that no details of any other suitable residential accommodation in the hands of the respondents has been brought on record by the petitioner. Therefore, I do not wish to interfere in the well reasoned order of the Addl. Rent Controller. There is no merit in this petition.

6. Interim order stands vacated.

7. Petition is dismissed.