RAM NIWAS Vs. LAKSHMI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 25-B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" only) is directed against an order dated 26th April, 2001 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller in E.No.212/1994 allowing the respondent's petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act and passing eviction orders against the petitioner in respect of suit premises at 256, Gali Prakash, Teliwara, Delhi. This order shall also dispose of the petitioner's application No.CM-967/2002 under Section 151 of the CPC for permission to bring on record subsequent events.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the petition and the application under Section 151 of the CPC filed by the petitioner-tenant, briefly stated, are that the respondent had filed a petition for eviction against petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act alleging that the petitioner was a tenant in suit premises but the said premises were required bonafide by him for himself and his family members for residential use. The respondent alleged that his family consisted of himself, his wife and two children who were school going at the time of filing the petition. The respondent-landlord also had mother and a married sister also who occasionally visited him and stayed with him on festivals and functions. It was stated that one other tenant in the property, Rajesh Kumar, had assured to vacate one room and a kitchen in his tenancy on the second floor of suit property but even after the recovery of the said portion, the respondent would be short of accommodation and would require premises in possession of the tenant/petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner/tenant was granted leave to defend the eviction petition. He contested the eviction petition mainly on the ground that respondent was neither owner nor landlord of the premises in question and there was no privity of contract between the parties. It was also contended that the respondent was residing in House No.491, Mahavir Gazar, Delhi and was keeping the first and second floor of the House No.256, Gali Prakash, Teliwara, Delhi vacant and as such, the accommodation with him was already more than sufficient. The plea of bonafide requirement was stated to be sham and bogus and motivated by the reason that the rent being paid by the petitioner was too low. It was stated that other tenant Rajesh Kumar had already vacated the premises in his possession and handed over the same to the respondent.