RAM NATH MADAN Vs. PROMILA CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the eviction order dated 3rd May, 2013 passed by the ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in an eviction petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner in respect of a room in the property bearing No. 53/27, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi -110005 (hereinafter referred to as "the tenanted premises").

(2.) Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petitioner are that the respondents filed the eviction petition stating that they bonafidely require the same for their occupation as well as occupation of their family members' dependent upon them, in the absence of other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It was stated that the tenanted premises was let out by way of an oral agreement in 1973 for residential purposes to Ram Nath Madan and Shyam Sunder Madan and after their death, the present petitioners became the tenants.

(3.) Petitioner in their written statement contested the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. It was contended that the respondents were neither the owners nor the landlords of the tenanted premises. And in fact Smt. Ram Piari (mother-in-law of respondent no.1 and mother of the remaining respondents) was the owner/landlady of the entire premises including the tenanted premises and after her death all her LRs, namely Virender Chopra, Narinder Chopra, Mahinder Chopra and Surinder Chopra became the owners/landlords. It was also contended that the tenanted premises was let out for commercial purposes and since the inception of tenancy the same was being used as a godown. It was further contended that besides the tenanted premises, there were six other shops in the said property and the same were let out for commercial purposes. It was averred that the tenanted premises is not required by the respondents for bonafide use as residence as they already had sufficient accommodation with them for that purpose and that the sons of respondent no.1 are not dependent upon her for their residence as they have their own houses in Delhi. It was only with the ulterior motive to let out the tenanted premises at an enhanced rate that the vacation of the petitioners was sought. The petitioners also disputed the correctness of the site plan filed by the respondents.