MUNSHI RAM SAKHUJA Vs. RAM PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the 5th Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the petition of the landlord under Section 14(!)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner is the landlord of the premises No. N-62, Greater Kailash, New Delhi and the respondent is the tenant of the ground floor of the said premises. The petitioner filed a petition for ejectment under section 14(l)(e) read with section 25B of the Act on the ground of bona fide requirement. It was pleaded that the premises indispute were let in favour of the respondent in January 1970 for residential purpose only. The present accommodation in possession of the petitioner is insufficient and consists of drawing-cum-dining, two bed rooms, store, kitchen, two toilets and a small varandah on back and front on the first floor besides barasati floor which consists of only one room along with latrine-cum bath. The family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife, one son who is married, his wife and their child aged about one year, another son aged about 22 years who is also of marriageable age and whose marriage has been held up due to shortage of accommodation. The petitioner has got one unmarried daughter aged about 18 years who is also a student. The petitioner has also got one married daughter who resides with her husband in Delhi and visits her parents off and on.

(3.) The petition was opposed by the respondent on various grounds. It was pleaded in the written statement that the respondent is a doctor. Previously he was posted in Army Medical Service and before his retirement he took the present premises for his residence as well as for his medical practice. He has been running the clinic in one room of the premises right from the beginning and to the knowledge of the petitioner and the petitioner-landlord has never objected to this use because of the agreement with him. It was further pleaded that the accommodation with the landlord on the first and second floor is more than sufficient and suitable for himself and his family members. The petitioner had converted the back varandah situated in the first floor into a regular room in which he had fitted a cooler. It was also stated that the petitioner had two rooms on the second floor and had wrongly described the accommodation in the barasati.