RAJINDER PRASAD SHARMA Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 23rd August, 2010 passed by the Ld. District Judge (East) cum Additional Rent Control Tribunal wherein eviction order under Section 14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') passed by the Ld. Additional Rent Controller (E), Karkardooma Court, Delhi against the Petitioner has been upheld.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that Respondent/landlord had filed an eviction petition against the Petitioner/tenant under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act alleging therein that he was owner/landlord of the premises bearing No. 4/2706, Gali No. 5, Bihari Colony, Shahdara, Delhi. Petitioner was a tenant in the above mentioned premises @ 715/- per month excluding electricity and water charges. It was stated that the tenanted premises comprised of two rooms, one kitchen, one store room, one bath room and one latrine and were let out to the Respondent for residential purposes. It was further alleged that neither the Respondent nor his family members had been residing in the tenanted premises since January, 2002 till the date of filing of the eviction petition. Respondent/landlord had alleged that Petitioner/tenant had been residing along with his family members at A-51/1A, East Azad Nagar, Delhi-110 051 since January, 2002 and had refused to vacate the tenanted premises and same had been abandoned by the Petitioner/tenant with an intention of not re-occupying the same. It was alleged that although no notice was required for filing the eviction petition, Respondent/landlord served a notice dated 20.12.2005 on the Petitioner/tenant. Respondent/landlord had prayed that an ejectment order be passed in his favour and against the Petitioner/tenant.

(3.) Petitioner/tenant had opposed the eviction petition by filing written statement wherein he contended that he had been continuously residing in the tenanted premises and the house bearing No. A-51/1-A, East Azad Nagar, Delhi was the residence of his younger son who was residing therein along with his family. Petitioner/tenant had further contended that he along with his wife and elder son were residing separately at the tenanted premises. In the written statement, on the one hand, Petitioner/tenant had taken the stand that he had purchased the premises in question from the father of Respondent/landlord, on the other hand, he had also accepted landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and paying rent to the Respondent/landlord. Petitioner/tenant had alleged that a frivolous petition had been filed and the same was liable to be rejected.