RAM PRASHAD Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order of learned ARCT dated 6th October, 2006 whereby the learned ARCT allowed the appeal of respondent and passed a decree in favour of respondent for eviction of the premises in question under Section 14 (1) (h) of DRC Act.

(2.) The respondent/landlord had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under section 14(1) (h) of DRC Act on the ground that the respondent had acquired an alternate accommodation for himself and for his family at RZ 332, Sagarpur, Shiv puri, Gali no. 7, New Delhi 110 046 where he was living with his family but he continued to occupy the tenanted premises namely WZ-1142, Nangal Raya, Tulsi Ram Ki Bagichi, New Delhi. The landlord also alleged that a part of the property acquired by the tenant namely RZ-332, Sagarpur, Shiv Puri, Gali No. 7, New Delhi, was in his occupation and a part was under the occupation of his tenants as he had let out the part of the property.

(3.) In his Written Statement, under preliminary objections, the respondent had taken a stand that he had not acquired the alleged property in Shivpuri and there was no cause of action for filing this eviction petition. While replying on merits to para 5 of the petition, he has stated that he neither owned, acquired or possessed any part of property No. RZ-332, Sagarpur, Shiv Puri, Gali No. 7, New Delhi. He denied that he had built the aforesaid house at Shivpuri, Sagar Pur. It is noteworthy that while landlord had, in his petition given the property No. acquired by the tenant as RZ-332, Shivpuri, Sagar Pur, Gali No. 7, the respondent/tenant had been talking of WZ-332, Shivpuri, Raigarpura. However, in para 18 of the WS, after denying that he had not acquired any property, he submitted that there was no Sale Deed, G.P.A. or Agreement to Sell of WZ-332, Shivpuri in his favour. He submitted that there was some dispute within his family so he, his elder son and children had been living in tenanted premises while his wife deserted him and started living separately with younger son. Respondent was not in touch with her for last three years.