Delhi High Court
Smt. Madhu Bala vs Sh. Prem Bahadur Saxena on 19 July, 2010
Author: V.B.Gupta
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
RCR 153/2010
% Judgment reserved on: 16th July, 2010
Judgment delivered on: 19th July, 2010
SMT. MADHU BALA
W/O SHRI ASHOK KUMAR,
R/O A-5A/219, JANAKPURI,
DELHI.
....Petitioner/Tenant
Through: Mr. B. R. Saini, Adv.
Versus
SH. PREM BAHADUR SAXENA
S/O LATE SH. LAL BIHARI LAL SAXENA,
R/O F-102, KARAM PURA,
NEW DELHI. ....Respondent/Landlord
Through: Nemo.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
V.B.Gupta, J.
Present petition under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Control Act, 1958 (for
short as 'Act') has been filed on behalf of petitioner/tenant against order dated
13.5.2010 passed by Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi, vide which application of
petitioner /tenant seeking leave to contest was dismissed and eviction order was
passed in favour of respondent/landlord.
2. The brief facts are that respondent is landlord/sole owner of the property
bearing No. A-5A/219, Janakpuri, Delhi, which is a double storeyed house.
Ground floor is having one room, kitchen, toilet and bathroom. Similar
accommodation is available on the first floor. The entire ground floor has been let
out to the petitioner. Respondent is living in rented accommodation at F-48,
Karampura, Delhi, which is owned by Sh. Girija Singh. Petitioner got retirement
from the service in the year 2006 and wants to live in the premises in question.
Despite several requests, petitioner has failed to vacate the premises.
3. In application for leave to contest filed by the petitioner, it is stated that
respondent is already in possession of property bearing No. F-102, Karampura,
Delhi as owner by way of adverse possession and has falsely asserted that he is a
tenant in respect of this premises. Only intention of respondent is to increase the
rent. He does not require the premises for his bonafide use, since he is having
alternative accommodation in Karampura.
4. During course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner stated that there
is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties and the letting
purpose.
5. Short question to be seen is as to whether requirement of respondent/
landlord is bonafide or not.
6. It is not in dispute that respondent has retired from the service in the year
2006.
7. Case of respondent is that he is living at F-48, Karampura, Delhi as a
tenant. There is no denial of this fact on behalf of petitioner in her leave
application.
8. On the other hand, case of petitioner is that respondent is living at F-102,
Karampura, Delhi and respondent has become owner of F-102, Karmapura by
adverse possession. There is nothing on record to show as to how respondent has
become owner by way of adverse possession qua property number F-102,
Karampura, Delhi.
9. Thus, contention with regard to ownership of Karampura house, made by
learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any force.
10. Since, petitioner has retired from the service and now he wants to live in
his own house, hence, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that
petitioner does not require premises in question for his bonafide use.
11. The power of this Court under section 25B (8) of the Act are not appellate
powers and this Court has only to see that the Trial Court had acted in accordance
with law and not transgresses the limits of its jurisdiction. I find that the Trial
Court had taken all relevant factors into consideration while dismissing the
application of the petitioner under Section 25B(8) of the Act seeking leave to
defend. I find no ground to interfere in the order of the Trial Court. The petition is
hereby dismissed.
19th July, 2010 V.B.GUPTA, J.
ab
