HANS RAJ TANEJA Vs. PUSHPA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the Rent Act') has been filed by the petitionertenant against the order dated 01.08.2001 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby his application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed against him by his landlady, respondent herein, under Section 14-D of the Rent Act to have the possession of one room on the ground floor of property bearing no. 8, Central Road, Bhogal, New Delhi in his occupation as a tenant(hereinafter to be referred as the 'tenanted room') had been rejected and he had been ordered to be evicted.

(2.) The relevant facts pleaded by the respondent-landlady to secure an order of eviction against the petitioner-tenant are that the tenanted room measuring 19 ft. x 7.5 ft. was initially let out to the petitionertenant in the year 1950 by her husband who died in the year 1998. He had inherited the said property from his father along with his other three brothers out of whom two had relinquished their shares under a family settlement and the respondent's husband and his brother became owners in equal shares. After the death of the husband of the respondent the petitioner attorned in favour of the respondent as her tenant and started paying rent to her. The tenanted room was let out for residential purposes but in the year 1988 the petitioner-tenant had allegedly converted that room into a shop without written permission of the respondent on the oral condition that he would vacate the tenanted room upon the completion of the construction of a commercial complex which he was constructing those days in Bhogal itself but he did not vacate the room thereafter despite his having constructed his own commercial complex in the year 1989. The respondent claimed to be in possession of two rooms and a kitchen only on the ground floor and in that accommodation she along with her son, his wife and their son, her widowed daughter Renu and her two children were residing. So, she required the tenanted room, bona fide, for residential purposes since the existing accommodation in her possession was not sufficient for such a big family.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant had sought leave to contest the eviction petition from Additional Rent Controller by moving an appropriate application supported by his affidavit as required under Section 25- B(3 & 4) of the Rent Act. It was claimed by him that the respondent's son along with his uncle who according to her own case also was a coowner along with her deceased husband had admitted in a suit filed by them against him (petitioner herein) that the tenanted room had been let out to him by Pt. Shish Ram, father-in-law of the respondentlandlady. So, the petition under Section 14-D of the Rent Act was not maintainable since the tenanted room was not let out to the petitionertenant either by the husband of the respondent or by respondent herself and this fact had been concealed by the respondent in her notice as well as in the eviction petition. It was further pleaded by the petitioner in his leave application that in the notice dated 19.02.2000 given to him by the respondent through her advocate before filing the eviction petition she herself had claimed that she was in possession of sufficient accommodation for residential purposes but in order to augment her income, since her only son was working as a peon only on a meagre salary , and she wanted the tenanted shop for running a grocery and general store to be managed by her daughter-in-law and also by her son and she had already arranged loan also for opening the shop. Therefore, the eviction petition on the ground of requirement of the tenanted room for residence was not bona fide and that aspect in any case required trial. Another point raised by the petitioner was that the tenanted room was being used as a shop right from the beginning and could not be used for residential purpose and so for that reason also he was entitled to get leave to defend the eviction petition. Yet another plea raised was that in the eviction notice the respondent had not mentioned that besides her own family even her widowed daughter was also residing with her, as was being claimed in the eviction petition by her, and so introduction of additional family members in the eviction petition showed her mala fide intentions.