Jai Rani vs Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 287 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. CM APPL.664/2006 (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) Delay condoned. Application disposed of.

2. CM APPL. 663/2006

Heard counsel. Cause shown is sufficient. RC. S.A. 4/1999 and CM APPL. Nos. 199/1999 and 3400/1999 are restored to their original file and number. Application is allowed and disposed of.

RC.S.A.4/1999 and CM APPL.199/1999 and 3400/1999

3. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated 18.5.1998 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCA No. 436/1991, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal holding that there was no infirmity in the judgment under challenge, which appeal was filed against the judgment dated 16.5.1991 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, whereby the learned Controller has allowed the eviction petition of the respondents filed under clause (a) of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act ) by giving benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act and also passed eviction order in favor of the respondents under clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act in respect of tenanted premises being two rooms, one store, a kitchen, verandah, latrine, bath and open courtyard in property No. F 10, Dilshad Garden, Shahdara, Delhi

4. The facts of the case, as has been noted by the Additional Rent Controller, are as under:

Petitioner's case is that the respondent is a tenant in respect of property No. F-10, Dilshad Garden, Shahdara, Delhi. One Sham Lal Gupta, the grandfather of the petitioner was originally the owner/landlord of the property in dispute.

The petitioner had become the owner of the property in dispute by virtue of a registered Will executed in favor of the petitioner by said Sham Lal Gupta.

The premises in dispute were let out to the respondent for residential purposes only. The premises in dispute are now required by the petitioners for their bona fide need. At the time of filing of the petition, the petitioners were residing with their father Kailash Narain Gupta in the government accommodation at A-4/7, M.S.Flats, Peshwa Road, New Delhi. During the pendency of the petition, the father of the petitioners retired from government service and vacated the government accommodation. Consequently, the petitioners are residing in a tenanted premises at Mayur Vihar as they have no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The petitioners thus require the suit premises bona fide for their residence. Hence the petition.

3. The petition is contested by the respondent. In the written statement, the respondent had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He has denied the ownership of the suit property in favor of the petitioner and has also denied the execution of any will by the original owner Sham Lal Gupta deceased in favor of the petitioner. The respondent has further stated that he is in occupation of F-10 Dilshad Colony, Shahdara and not F-10 Dilshad Garden. It is further stated that premises in dispute were let out to the respondent for residential-cum-commercial purposes and are being used as such. He has further denied that the petitioners require the suit premises bona fide for their residence.

4. In the replication, the petitioners have controverter the allegations made by the respondent in the written statement. And have reaffirmed their stand taken in the petition.

5. The petitioners have examined A.W.Rakesh Kumar Gupta, AW2 Tilak Raj, A.W.3-Kailash Narain, and A.W.4 Lakshmi Narain. The respondent has examined himself as R.W.1 apart from producing one Ghanshyam Singh Tyagi-R.W.2.

5. On the appreciation of the evidence before it, the Additional Rent Controller has came to a conclusion that the respondents have been able to prove their case both under Section 14(1)(a) as also under Section 14(1)(e) and consequently decreed the suit. The first appellate court once again re-appraised the material on record and came to a conclusion that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller was not perverse or contrary to law.

6. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings the respondents came into possession of flat No. 74- B, Mayur Vihar II, New Delhi as also flat No. 131, Maitri Apartments, Patparganj, Delhi - 92. He contends that in view of the changed scenario the requirement of the respondents is not bona fide as regards the premises in question. He also submits that the respondents withheld this vital information from the Court and therefore, ought to be penalised.

7. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that as regards flat No. 74-B Mayur Vihar II, New Delhi, the apartment does not belong to him. He submits that the so-called owner from whom he is purported to have purchased the property does not have title since he was in default vis-a-vis Land DO. However that apartment was taken on rent and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is paid as advance. Though the General Power of Attorney was got executed, yet the apartment does not belong to the respondents. As regards flat No. 131, Maitri Apartments, Parparganj, he submits that the family of the landlord is consisting of 10 members and what is available in flat No. 131, Maitri Apartment is three bed rooms where respondent No. 2 and his family are residing. The respondent No. 1 whose family consists of himself, wife, retired father, one son and daughter aged about 27 years and 22 years respectively are living in flat at Mayur Vihar, Phase II, which is a rented accommodation against which a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been paid as advance. The accommodation in dispute is still needed to accommodate the family of respondent No. 1.

8. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record as also the judgment under challenge. As far as the judgment under challenge is concerned, I find no infirmity in the same. However, as regards the changed scenario, where flat No. 74-B, Mayur Vihar II, New Delhi as also flat No. 131, Maitri Apartments, Patparganj, Delhi- 92 the same even if taken into consideration at the present stage I find that the family of the landlord consists of 10 members and the accommodation available for them is insufficient. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment under challenge.

9. RC.S.A. 4/1999 is dismissed. CM APPL.199/1999 and 3400/1999 also stand dismissed.