MAYA DEVI Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 23.12.2011 of Administrative Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Rent Controller (ARC), North East, whereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act, was allowed, as also the order dated 25.09.2012 whereby the applications seeking review of the order of 23.12.2011 and for condonation of delay & stay of the execution order, were dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant in a portion of the property bearing No. F-6/8A, Krishna Nagar, Delhi under the respondent for residential purpose. Her eviction was sought from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement thereof by the respondent for himself and his family members dependent upon him. After the leave to defend was granted to the petitioner, the petition was put on trial. Both the parties led their respective evidence. The learned ARC vide the impugned judgment dated 23.12.2011 held the respondent to be entitled to seek eviction of the petitioner and, he consequently passed the eviction order against her. Thereafter, the respondent filed the execution of the eviction order, to which, the petitioner filed objections and she also filed an application under Section 25(9) of the Act read with Section 47 CPC along with the application for condonation of delay seeking review of the aforesaid eviction order. All these came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2012. Both these orders of ARC are under challenge in the instant petition.

(3.) THE plea of the respondent, on the other hand, was that he is in possession of only one room, one kitchen, common toilet and bathroom and his family consists of himself and his wife. He also has one married son, and two married daughters, who generally visit and stay with him. It was also his case that he was a social person and well connected. As regard to the plea of the petitioner relating to other properties available with the respondent, it was his submission that the premises being flat No. 12-C, MIG Flat, Shivam Enclave, Jhilmil Colony was the property of his younger brother's wife. He further denied that he is the owner of premises No. 9/4779, Old Seelampur, Gandhi Nagar. With regard to the flat at Meena Apartments, he submitted that this was in occupation of his son and his wife and grandsons. With regard to the premises No. 1780, Kucha Lattu Shah, his plea was that his father was owner of only three rooms in this property and the petitioner had only one-eight undivided share in three rooms, and none of these rooms were in his possession or occupation. One of these rooms was stated to be in possession of younger brother and other two rooms not being used due to dispute of shareholders. It was submitted that only old furniture was lying therein.