RAJ KUMARI Vs. HARI PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arguments of the counsel for the petitioner have been heard ex-parte for final disposal of the revision petition.

(2.) This petition is filed under sub-section (8) of Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act) by the petitioner landlady assailing an order of Additional Rent Controller dated 29th April 1999 whereby he had dismissed an eviction petition filed by her for recovery of possession of the premises from the respondent tenant under clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act.

(3.) Briefly the facts are that the petitioner Smt. Raj Kumari filed a petition on 7th August 1984 for eviction of a tenant Hari Parshad (who has since died and is now represented by the legal representatives who are respondents) from one room in property No. E/4 Hazara Park, Shiv Puri, Delhi under clause (e) of Section 14(1) read with Section 25B of the Act. In the petition her allegation is that she had purchased this property from the previous owner Ganpat Rai under an Agreement of Sale dated 9th May 1978 followed by a registered sale deed dated 29th June 1979 and has become landlord and owner of the property of which the tenancy premises is a part. The premises comprising of one room were let out to the tenant Hari Parshad for residential purpose and he had been residing therein. She herself is living in premises No. G/27 Krishan Nagar, Delhi in which her husband was a tenant but after the death of the original owner landlord her legal representatives are pressurising her and her husband to vacate the premises. As such they have to shift from the said premises. Her family comprised of herself, her husband and one adopted child. It is also alleged that she does not have any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation for her residence.