PRADEEP KUMAR SETHI Vs. RAJENDER KUMAR SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 against the order dated 25.01.10 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the petitioner-tenants application for grant of leave to defend the eviction petition in respect of first floor of premises no. H-68, B.K.Dutt Colony, New Delhi(hereinafter to be referred to as ,,the tenanted premises) filed against him by his landlord(respondent herein) has been dismissed and eviction order has been passed against the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is the brother of the respondent. THE respondent had filed the eviction petition against the petitioner on the allegations that he was the owner of the tenanted premises comprising of two rooms, kitchen, latrine and bathroom and he had let out the same to his brother at a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- w.e.f. 31.03.98 and now he requires the premises in the possession of his brother bona fide for his residence and that of his servant. It was pleaded in the eviction petition by the respondent that he was residing in the house of his daughter in South Extension and since his daughter wants to sell her house she has requested him to vacate the premises in his occupation in that house. He had no other residential house in Delhi except the tenanted premises in occupation of the petitioner.

(3.) THE pleas which only were urged before this Court are dealt with in para nos. 6,7 & 9 of the impugned order and the relevant portions of which are re-produced below:- " 6. THE respondent in the application has disputed the contention of the petitioner that he is a tenant of the petitioner. THE petitioner has placed on record the copy of the lease deed which described the respondent as lessee. THE case of the respondent is that lease deed dated 16.03.98 is a false document. THE respondent alleged that his signature on the said lease deed were obtained by his mother by misusing undue influence. It is highly unbelievable that a mother will play fraud and will use undue influence on her son so as to obtain his signature on some documents. THE respondent himself has stated in his application for leave to contest the eviction petition that he is an educated person. No educated person is supposed to sign on a vital document like lease deed without reading the contents thereof. THErefore, the story put forth by the respondent that his signatures were obtained on the lease deed by his mother by keeping him in dark about its contents cannot be believed. 7........................... THE respondent admits that the demised property was purchased in the name of the petitioner. In other words the respondent accepted the petitioner as the owner of the demised property. THE contention of the respondent that the demised property was purchased by the father of the petitioner and the respondent out of the actual funds provided by the grandfather of the respondent and the petitioner does not give rise to a triable issue. What the Court has to see is whether the petitioner is the owner of the demised property or not. THE Court is not concerned with the process on the manner by which the petitioner became the owner of the demised property. THE property tax records maintained by the public authorities cannot be considered while deciding whether the respondent is the tenant of the petitioner or not. THEse records are relevant for the purpose for deciding the question whether the house tax or the property tax for a particular period with respect to particular property has been paid to the Municipal Authority or not. THErefore, the description of the demised property in the property tax record maintained by the NDMC is of no consequence. 9. THE last contention of the respondent in the application seeking leave to contest the eviction petition is that property bearing No. R 31 First Floor, South Extention Part II, New Delhi is available with the petitioner for residence. THE petitioner in the petition itself has stated that he is presently residing in his daughters house at R 31 First Floor, South Extention Part II, New Delhi. However, the petitioner has also stated that now the daughter of the petitioner wishes to sell this property and has requested the petitioner to vacate and hand over the possession of the said property. THErefore, the property bearing No. R 31 First Floor, South Extention Part II, New Delhi is not available with the petitioner.