VED PRAKASH AHUJA Vs. RAJ RANI CHHATWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dated 21st January, 2010 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller(West), Delhi dismissing the leave to defend application of the petitioner/tenant for contesting an eviction petition filed by the respondents under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 14D and Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the tenanted residential premises situated on the ground floor of property bearing No. B-4/3 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi was let out to the petitioner by the deceased husband of the respondent No. 1, Shri Suraj Prakash Chhatwal. He expired in the year 1989. The respondent No. 1 averred in the petition that she is an old ailing lady and there is no other person to look after her except for her son, respondent No. 2, who is also residing with his family members in the remaining portion of the suit premises. It was submitted that the accommodation available with the respondents was insufficient for them as also the members of their family and that the respondent No. 1, who is presently residing at Lucknow, wanted to shift to her own property in Delhi, i.e., the aforesaid suit property. It was further averred that the family of the respondent No. 1 consists of herself, her son, i.e., respondent No. 2, his wife, and a college going daughter, apart from her three daughters. After the death of her husband, respondent No. 1 along with respondents 2 to 6 had inherited the ownership and landlordship of the property in question and sought eviction of the petitioner therefrom, for the purposes of shifting therein along with her son and his family.

(3.) Summons were issued in the aforesaid petition under the Third Schedule of the Act and were duly served upon the petitioner who filed the application for seeking leave to defend within the statutory period. In the said application, respondent No. 1 did not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and sought to contest the eviction petition on the ground that the respondent No. 1 was a resident of Lucknow and was residing there with her unmarried daughter in her own house; that her son was already in possession of a part of the suit premises which was sufficient for the requirement of the respondent No. 1; that the husband of the respondent No. 1 had entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner in the year 1978, in respect of the suit property against which the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money; that the husband of the respondent No. 1 had also filed a similar eviction petition against another tenant in the year 1983, but did not shift to Delhi for the purposes of residence. It was further stated by the petitioner that the eldest daughter of the respondent No. 1 was married and residing at Sector 3, Rohini, Delhi, the third daughter had permanently shifted to USA and respondents No. 6 and 7 (sons of the deceased daughter of respondent No. 1) were residing with their father. The unmarried daughter of respondent No. 1, Ms. Banita, respondent No. 3 herein, was working and residing at Lucknow.