MANJU SWAROOP Vs. VINAY SHANKER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dated 30.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord against the petitioners/tenants under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act') in respect of two rooms on the ground floor besides a common toilet on the first floor situated in the property bearing House No. 1610(new), H.No. 935/1610, T-2243 (old), Tri Nagar, Delhi. While passing the eviction order, it was clarified that the same would not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of the order.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present case are that the respondent, who is the landlord of the suit premises, filed an eviction petition against the petitioners/tenants under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In the eviction petition, it was averred that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Shri Manmohan Swaroop Gupta, was inducted as a tenant in respect of two rooms on the ground floor of the suit premises besides a toilet on the first floor commonly used by the tenants and the respondent. The said premises was let out for residential purpose @ Rs. 300/- per month, excluding other charges. The respondent/landlord averred that he was in possession of two bed rooms, one drawing room, one kitchen, store and veranda besides a common toilet and bathroom on the first floor of the said premises. He submitted that he had no other reasonable alternative suitable residential accommodation and on the basis of bonafide requirement, sought eviction of the petitioners/tenants from the tenanted premises for his residence as well as that of his family members, dependent on him, totalling to seven in number.

(3.) Summons in the petition were issued to the petitioners/tenants herein (respondents in the court below). Counsel for the petitioners/tenants states that leave to contest the eviction petition was filed by her clients, which was duly allowed and they were granted an opportunity to file their written statement. In the written statement, the petitioners/tenants disputed the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties. It was claimed that the respondent was one of the co-landlords and could not file the eviction petition alone. It was further claimed that the tenanted premises was given to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners for residential-cum- commercial purpose. It was also contended that a partial eviction petition had been filed and that the aforesaid premises consisted of one room, one kitchen with roof thereupon and common use of toilet on the ground floor, and that the toilet on the ground floor and roof of the kitchen had not been described in the tenanted premises. The site plan filed by the respondent/landlord was disputed and it was submitted that he had shown reduced number of rooms in his possession by removing the partition walls. It was lastly urged that the respondent/landlord had other residential houses in Delhi, out of which one was situated in Rithala and the other was in Rohini.