Vee Pee Printing Press vs Parmeshwari Devi
2004 Latest Caselaw 1126 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 20.05.2002 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E.No.146/2001, whereby the learned Controller has allowed the eviction petition of the respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Controller are as follows:-

"Case of the petitioner is that she is an old and ailing widow more than 69 years of age. She is having five sons. All her sons are married and are residing with her except one. It has been claimed by her that she is having a large family and at present there are 20 persons residing in the property in question and she requires atleast 21 rooms in order to fulfill her needs and the needs of her family members who are dependent upon her for their residence. She is presently residing along with her family at property No.4892-96, Laddu Ghati, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. She and her family are in occupation of entire first floor and second floor besides some portion of first floor. Respondent is tenant under the petitioner with respoect to one hall with latrine and bathroom situated at ground floor. Tehanted portion has been shown in red in the site plan annexed with the petition. It has been claimed that the tenanted premises had been let out 26 years back by the husband of the petitioner and rate of rent is Rs.67/- p.m. It has been claimed that letting purpose was residential-cum-commercial. Thus eviction has been prayed for."

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the landlady is not entitled to maintain the petition since she has not imp leaded the other owners as parties. He also submits that since purpose of letting out was commercial the petition cannot be maintained. He also contends that the other co-owners have sufficient accommodation available to them, which fact has not been disclosed.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and have perused the order under challenge. From the aforesaid order it appears that the Additional Rent Controller has given careful thought to the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner and a mere repetition before me does not improve his case. Having considered the case of the petitioner, I am satisfied, that the order under challenge, needs no interference.

5. Consequently, I find that the judgment under challenge suffers from no infirmity, perversity, irregularity or jurisdictional error. C.R.P. 695/2002 & CM 1510/2002 are dismissed.