AMRITA GOPAL SINGH Vs. VALAITI RAM JAISHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, hereinafter called 'the Act', by the owner-landlords is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.5.1989 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby their eviction petition under section 14(i)(e) read with section 25B of the Act was dismissed on the short ground that the letting purpose was residential-cum-commercial.

(2.) The original eviction petition was filed by Shri Gopal Singh in 1982 Soon after filing of the petition the said Shri Gopal Singh died and the petition was amended wherein his legal representatives were also brought on record Paragraph 18(a) of the amended petition reads as under : "That the premises in suit was let to the respondent for the residence and the petitioners who are the owners and landlord of the premises in suit bona-fide requires the same for occupation as residence for themselves and for members of their families dependent upon them and the petitioners have got no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation with them. The petitioners along with their family members are residing in a rented house bearing No. C-47 Pamposh Enclave, Ground Floor, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The landlord of the said house bearing No. C-47, Pamposh Enclave Greater Kailash, New Delhi filed the eviction petition against th' petitioners and the decree for eviction had been passed against the petitioners by the Court of Shri D.S. Sidhu, Addl. Rent Controller Delhi vide judgment dated 22.1.1982 and the appeal against that judgment was also dismissed by the court of Rent Control Tribunal Delhi granting 2 years time to the petitioners to vacate the said premises upto 10.2.85. Thus the petitioners are facing a decree for eviction of the tenanted premises where the petitioners are at present residing along with their family members and two years time has bee granted to the petitioners to vacate the said premises by the order dated 10.2.83. The petitioners have got no other house of their own excepting the premises in dispute for themselves and for their family members. The petitioners are facing great hardship because of having no accommodation available with them and because of having decree for eviction passed against them from the tenanted premises The requirement of the petitioners is most bona fide." During the pendency of this petition it has been brought on record that the petitioners had to vacate the premises bearing No. C-47, Pamposh Enclave 496 Greater Kailash, New Delhi and thereafter had shifted to another house and by now have shifted to a third house.

(3.) The petition was contested by the respondent firm mainly on the ground that the letting purpose was residencial-cum-commercial and as such the petition had to be dismissed on that ground. However, the bona fide requirements of the petitioners were also disputed and it was pleaded that the premises in question were being used for residencial-cum-commercial purpose since the inception of the tenancy. It was denied that any rent note was executed and according to the respondent the tenancy was oral. It was not disputed that the partner of the respondent firm, namely, Shri J. Mehra was residing in the premises in question with his family.