ANIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. RAM KISHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("the Rent Act' in short) by the petitioner-landlord against the order dated 09.05.2003 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissing the eviction petition filed by him against his tenant Ram Kishan Das, who died during the pendency this petition and is now being represented by his widow and one son, under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Rent Act of in respect of a part of property bearing no. 3179, Ward no. IX, Lal Darwaza, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi (hereinafter to be referred to as "the tenanted premises').

(2.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case which have emerged to be the admitted facts from the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court some of which even the Additional Rent Controller has found to be proved, are that the petitioner is the owner of three storeyed property bearing no. 3179, Ward no. IX, Lal Darwaza, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. He had purchased this property from its erstwhile owner in the year 1986 when the entire property was in occupation of different tenants, including late Shri Ram Kishan Das who was let out two rooms and common WC on the ground floor. Father of the petitioner-landlord Shri Ganga Parshad was also a tenant in respect of one baithak on the ground floor and one room on the first floor and he was carrying on his business there in the name of Sharma Industries. Shri Yad Ram was a tenant in one room on the second floor and one Shri Bril Mohan Bansal was a tenant in one room and one store room on the first floor. The petitioner-landlord had filed the eviction petition against the deceased tenant Shri Ram Kishan Das in the year 1993 on the ground that he required the premises under his tenancy, which were being used for residential purpose, for his own residence as he was living with his parents in a house which belonged to his mother. He wanted to shift to his own house along with his wife and one daughter(Subsequently, as stated during the course of hearing by the counsel for the petitioner and not disputed by the other side, the petitioner's wife gave birth to two more girls also).

(3.) The deceased respondent-tenant had contested the eviction petition after he was granted leave to contest it. A written statement, which was really argumentative, was filed by him. Regarding the bona fide requirement of the petitioner-landlord as pleaded in the eviction petition he pleaded that the petitioner had all along been living with his parents in property no. 3178 and then on acquisition of property no. 3258 he was staying in that property as a member of Joint Hindu Family which comprised of his father, mother, younger brother and two sisters and that property no. 3258 was a five storeyed house having 18 rooms and thus the need for the tenated premises was not bona fide at all. The respondent further pleaded that one baithak on the entire ground floor was in the possession of the petitioner-landlord where he was running a "kaarkhana' and first and second floors of the property of which the tenanted premises formed a part, were also in possession of the petitioner-landlord and which fact he had not disclosed. It was also pleaded that the petitioner had come out with a false story(in his reply to the leave to defend application) that one room on the first floor which was earlier in the occupation of one Mr. Brij Mohan Bansal was got vacated by the petitioner-landlord on 22-10-1991 and then re-let to one Mr. Ravi Shankar Rastogi on 11-12-1991 as he was unmarried at that time and so did not require accommodation in his own property no. 3179, while in fact there was no tenant on the first floor and that was only cooked up story since if that was true he would not have let out the room to so called tenant Rastogi just a few months before his marriage. It was also pleaded that the mala fides of the petitioner-landlord in filing the eviction petition were also clear from the fact that his father had filed a case of eviction in 1994 against one of his tenants in his another property on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for his family which included the petitioner herein also and that showed that when the present petition was filed the petitioner really did not require the tenanted premises and he always wanted to stay together with his parents.