RANJIT & ORS. Vs. CHARAN KAUR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been contested by the petitioners under Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 assailing the impugned order dated 18th November, 2010 passed by the court of SCJ/RC (West), Delhi in eviction petition No. E -37/2009. The respondents/landlord sought eviction of the petitioners/tenants alleging bonafide requirement of the tenanted property bearing No. 2568, Gali Mandir Wali, Shadipur Khampur, Delhi. The petitioners on being served the summons of the eviction petition filed leave to defend application. The respondents herein filed reply to the application for leave to defend. The learned Addl. Rent Controller after hearing both the parties dismissed the leave to defend application and passed the eviction order in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners.

(2.) THE respondents herein stated in the eviction petition that they have three married sons as well as married daughters and the required the tenanted property for the residence of the family of one of their sons Sh. Satnam Singh who has three grown up daughters and a son aged 18, 16, 12 and 10 years respectively.

(3.) IN the leave to defend application filed on behalf of the petitioners, it is stated that the respondents are not the owners/landlords of the tenanted property and the same was let out to late Shri. Prakash Singh, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners by one Sh. Gurcharan Singh on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/ - in 1955 and the respondents have purchased the property from one Ram Kishan by way of unregistered documents and as such their ownership is in dispute. The petitioners stated in the petition that all three sons of the respondent have sufficient accommodation in their possession as the eldest son Sh. Mohinder Singh has two rooms and a guest room on the first floor, second son Satnam Singh has three rooms on the ground floor and the third son Sukhwinder Singh is in possession of four rooms of the tenanted property and there are altogether 11 rooms in possession of the respondents and therefore, there is no bonafide requirement as alleged.