PARVESH CHAND Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the tenant before this court. He is aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.01.2000 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) vide which the eviction petition filed by the landlady, Santosh Kumari & Another seeking eviction of her tenant from the disputed premises i.e. premises bearing No. G-99, New Seelam Pur, Shahdara, Delhi had been decreed in favour of the landlady. Vide the same order, two eviction petitions filed by the respondent No. 2 (Krishan Kumar), at his request, had also been permitted to be withdrawn by him.

(2.) RECORD shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlady under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA); contention was that the petitioner is the landlord/owner of the premises; the premises had been let out to respondent No. 1 vide an oral agreement sometime in the year 1985 for a residential purpose at the rent of Rs.300/- per month which was exclusive of electricity charge. Contention of the petitioner was that after the death of her father-in-law Devi Dass by virtue of a Will dated 07.11.1972 executed by the deceased, the petitioner had become the owner of the said premises. The family of the petitioner comprised of herself, her husband, two sons and one daughter; on the date of the filing of the eviction petition, she was in occupation of two rooms besides a chowk and kitchen in the rear portion and the verandah on the front portion; contention being that the accommodation available with her was insufficient for the needs of her family; the suit premises is required bona fide for herself and her family.

(3.) ORAL and documentary evidence was led by the respective parties; 7 witness were examined on behalf of the landlady and 6 witnesses had come into the witness box on behalf of the tenant. Landlady Santosh Kumari had entered into the witness box as PW7. She had reiterated the averments made in the eviction petition claiming herself to be the owner by virtue of a Will dated 7.11.1972 (Ex. PW5/A) executed by her father- in-law Devi Dass in her favour; she categorically denied the suggestion that property had been sold by Sh. Satya Singh to Baldev Kumar or Baldev Kumar in turn had sold it to Raj Bhasin. PW5 an attesting witnesses had identified her signatures at point ,,A and that of the deceased at point ,,B on Ex. PW5/A. PW6 had signed the Will as a marginal witness and he had also identified his signatures at point ,,x on Ex.PW5/A reiterating the deposition of PW5 and PW7 that the deceased Devi Dass had signed the said Will. PW 1 to 4 had produced relevant summoned record substantiating the claim set up by the petitioner that in various litigations filed interse between the parties, all efforts made by the petitioner to implead Raj Bhasin had failed; the suit filed by the Raj Bhsin seeking a declaration qua ownership of the suit property had also been disposed of and thereafter the final order passed in that suit was never agitated by Raj Bhasin; contention of the landlady being to the effect that she was the owner of the disputed premises and not Raj Bhasin as was the stand set up by respondent No. 1.