RENU JOLLY Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners-tenants have filed this petition under Section 25 8 (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) to challenge the eviction order dated 1.7.2000 passed by learned ARC by which an eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act was allowed and an eviction order was passed.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (i) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Act against Shri Mit Pal Singh Jolly and Smt. Balwant Kaur, both since deceased, whose LRs. are the present petitioners. According to the respondent, the premises in question had been let out to the predecessor in interest of the petitioners for residential purposes but now the respondent bonafide required the same for his own and the residence of his family members. According to the respondent the accommodation available with him consisted of two small rooms, passage, bath and latrine etc. which was wholly insufficient for his family. According to him he had no other suitable residential accommodation available to him. He also pleaded that he, his wife and two daughters as well as his old and ailing mother were facing extreme inconvenience on account of paucity of accommodation and hence the prayer for eviction of the petitioners from the premises in question.

(3.) The petitioners were granted leave to defend the petition. In their written statement they pleaded that there was no relationship of tenant and landlord between them and the respondent and hence the petition filed by him was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that the respondent was gainfully employed and living at Bombay and as such he did not require the premises in question and it was a false plea that he was contemplating to come to Delhi. The mother of the respondent Smt.Raj Kaushalya, who was the landlady had filed an eviction petition under Section 14-D of the Act against the petitioners which was dismissed by learned ARC and as such the present petition was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes and as such this petition was not maintainable. The Agreement dated 30.7.1974 by which the tenancy was created in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners was referred to and it was submitted that they had never adorned to the respondent as tenants.