INDERMANI Vs. AJAY PRAKASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short "the Act"), assailing the order dated 06.06.2012, passed by the court of Sh. S.K. Malhotra, SCJ cum RC, North Delhi, whereby the leave to defend application was dismissed and an order of eviction was passed.

(2.) The facts of the case leading to the passing of the impugned order are as under. The petitioner was a tenant in respect of two rooms, kitchen, bathroom, covered verandah in front of the aforesaid two rooms, open terrace till brick wall and common WC on the second floor of property bearing municipal no. 6571, Block-D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 (hereinafter referred to as "the tenanted property"). An eviction petition was filed on 11.02.2011 by the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement u/S 14 (1) (e). In the petition, the respondent submitted that the tenanted premises is required for residential purposes for his family, consisting of his wife and two children, a son aged 24 years and a daughter aged 22 years. He required three rooms for himself and his family, one drawing and dining room and one puja room. As the respondent has close relatives who visit him often, an additional room was needed as the guest room. The respondent also required a computer cum study room for his 22 year old daughter and a room for his attendant. In addition, the respondent also required a garage as he was maintaining one car, a scooter and a bike. In the eviction petition, the respondent submitted that the previous landlady was his mother, Smt. Chanderpati Devi. It has been mentioned that the respondent?s mother had filed an eviction petition bearing no 309/80 titled as "Smt. Chanderpati Devi vs. Smt. Indermani" on the ground of bonafide requirement. An order of eviction was passed by the Ld. ARC on 30.01.1984. This order was challenged in the High Court and later in the Supreme Court, wherein the eviction order was upheld. Smt. Chanderpati could not file the execution petition as she expired on 09.07.1984. It was further submitted by the respondent that one shop on the ground floor was sold to one Sh. Raj Kumar. One godown was occupied by Sh. Satya Narain Gupta. One garage is in the use and occupation of a tenant Sh. Om Prakash and the mezzanine floor above this had been sold to Sunita Bajaj on 13.01.1997. On the first floor, the respondent was the owner of three living rooms, one kitchen, one puja cum store room, one bathroom and one common W.C. It was also submitted that one of the rooms on the backside, which was in the ownership of the respondent, is in the use and occupation of Sh. Anil Prakash Gupta, his brother. The respondent also submitted that he did not have any other suitable accommodation in Delhi for residential purposes.

(3.) In the leave to defend application, the petitioner/tenant has brought up various issues. Firstly, he contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties as the respondent?s brother Sh. Anil Prakash Gupta was also a co-owner and co-landlord in the property in which the tenanted premises was located. His second contention was that the landlord has alternative accommodation, information of which was to be further collected and submitted. Consequent to the plea taken in the leave to defend application, the petitioner, in the rejoinder submitted that the respondent/landlord had registered himself for allotment of plot under Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 against priority No. 11748. It was further contended that the respondent had been allotted the plot against the specified number and has also built a residential house thereon. The petitioner also contended in the leave to defend application that the brother of the respondent, Sh. Anil Prakash Gupta, who purportedly was occupying a room on the first floor as permissive user, had separately owned and possessed another property bearing No 14/3, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and that his family resides in the said property. The petitioner also challenged the ownership of the landlord by submitting that the Will executed by the respondent?s mother, Smt. Chanderpati Devi in favour of him and his brother was not genuine. All these averments have been denied by the respondent landlord.