AMIR CHAND ARORA Vs. SURAJ PARKASH BHASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the landlord against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing his petition for eviction of the tenant. The petitioner is the owner of premises described as 62 South Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi. The said premises comprises of a shop and two rooms besides kitchen, bath, lavatory in the ground floor, three rooms, a lavatory, bath room on the first floor and a barsati on the second floor. The two rooms and kitchen etc. in the ground floor are let out to the respondent Suraj Parkash Bhasin. The first floor and the barsati are in possession of the landlord. A plan of the building is on the room and the portion in possession of the land-lord is shown in blue.

(2.) The landlord on 4th August, 1988 filed a petition for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. The landlord alleged that his family consisted of his wife, there daughters and two sons, that out of the daughters 2 were married : one to an air-force officer and the other to a service Engineer, that his third daughter aged 18 is studying in B. A. final, his elder son aged 14 in 10th class and the second son aged 10 years in the 6th class; that the accommodation in his possession is not sufficient and he requires the ground floor for his personal need.

(3.) The tenant filed an application under Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for permission to contest the eviction petition. The tenant denied that the landlord bonafide needed the premises for his personal use. The tenant alleged that the petitioner Amir Chand Arora is posted at Assam and his family only comprises of his wife, one daughter and two sons and they are living comfortably in the house. The tenant further alleged that the eldest daughter was married in the year 1974 and the second daughter in the year 1976-77 and that he had never seen them visiting the petitioner and that makes him to believe that the daughters are not on good terms with the petitioner. The tenant also denied that the petitioner was the owner of the premises. The tenant alleged that the house belonged to the brother of the petitioner.