Delhi High Court
Ravindra Kumar Singh vs Nisha Dhawan & Ors. on 8 December, 2017
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 8th December, 2017
+ RC REV. 557/2017and CM 44324-44327/2017
RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.S. Mishra, Advocate with
Petitioner in person.
versus
NISHA DHAWAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On the eviction petition (E. No.382/2016) instituted by the
respondents on the ground of bonafide need under Section 14(1)(e) of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the petitioner having been served
with the special summons, his application for leave to defend under
Section 25-B has been dismissed and an eviction order passed against
him by the Additional Rent Controller by order dated 22.07.2017 in
respect of tenanted premises described as one room measuring 11.6 ft.
x 11 ft. along with open terrace situated at second floor of property
No.134, Bhai Parmanand Colony, Delhi-110009.
2. The revision petition at hand challenges the said eviction order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard and the
record perused.
4. It is not disputed that the petitioner is in occupation of the
subject premises in the capacity of a tenant. It was admitted by the
petitioner that he was inducted as a tenant in the premises by the
husband of the first respondent, who has since died and has been
succeeded by the respondents. Though the petitioner raises an issue
about the ownership of the respondents qua the suit property, he is
unable to show any material to substantiate the same. In the face of
document in the nature of Conveyance Deed dated 11.03.2016
executed by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in favour of the
first respondent confirming her title to the subject property, the
question of ownership raised by the petitioner is not only devoid of
substance but wholly frivolous.
5. The respondents had submitted in their eviction petition that the
subject property consists of construction at three floors, the demised
premises in the possession and use of the petitioner being the one on
the top floor. The respondents had submitted site plan (copy at page
118 of the paper book) depicting the layout of accommodation at
various floors. The petitioner had raised the plea that the said site plan
does not correctly show the available accommodation. He submitted
another site plan (page 218 of the paper book) which, it appears,
escaped the notice of the Rent Controller. But then, a comparison of
the said two site plans reveals that the contentions raised by the
petitioner in the application seeking leave to defend are unfounded.
The site plan submitted by him wrongly describes even the passage on
the ground floor as a room. It is clear that the accommodation at the
ground floor primarily consists of one drawing room, one large room
and one small room, besides facilities in the nature of kitchen, bath
and WC, the entire first floor accommodation being in the possession
and use of the other tenants.
6. The need on the basis of which eviction order was sought by the
respondents relates to the residential purposes of the family that
consists of two daughters who have come of age, besides one minor
child, the first respondent also pleading the need for a separate guest
room for her mother who would often visit. The landlady has
explained that her daughters, having turned major, require separate
rooms, particularly for studies. There is nothing in the application for
leave to defend moved by the petitioner from which it could be
inferred that the said need is not bona fide.
7. Thus, the revision petition is found devoid of merit. The
learned Additional Rent Controller has taken an appropriate view to
decline opportunity to the petitioner to contest. No triable issues
having been raised, the eviction order has been passed in accordance
with law and calls for no interference by this court.
8. The petition and the applications filed therewith are dismissed
in limine.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 08, 2017
vk
