AMAR KAUR Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act" only) assails an order dated 9.7.2001 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to defend and orderIny thier eviction from the premises In question under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act.

(2.) The Facts relevant For the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the respondent-landlord had Filed a petition For eviction against the petitioners on the allegations that he was the owner-landlord and petitioners were his tenants in respect of the ground floor portion of the property in question. The respondent claimed that his Family compromised of himself, his wife and three school going children but the accommodation available to him was only. one room with toilet/bath on the second Floor of property No.2502, Nalva Street, Pahar Ganj which was owned by his Father. The respondent was being asked to vacate the said premises and shift to his own house and hence the petition for eviction of the petitioners/tenants from one room, one varanda and open area on the ground floor of the suit property No.2494, Nalva Street, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi shown in red in the site plan attached with the petition. It was also pleaded that the premises in question had been let out to Shri Satan Singh, late husband of petitioner No.1 and after his death the petitioners had become his tenants.

(3.) The petitioners filed an application For leave to defend the eviction petition mainly on the ground that the respondent did not require the premises bonafide and was having sufficient accommodation in other property in the same street. It was stated that the premises in question were let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes to the deceased husband of petitioner No . 1 (father of petitioner No.2) who was a Carpenter and was doing his business also from the said premises. It was stated that there were other LRs also of the deceased-tenant who had not been impleaded. It was pleaded that the petitioners had started paying rent to the respondent-landlord without seeing any document of his title in respect of the property in question and as such the payment of rent on misrepresentations did not confer any right, title or interest inrespect of the property in question upon the respondent-landlord. It was denied that the respondent was the owner of the premises in question.