B.K.PRADHAN Vs. AVTAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/landlord has filed the present petition under Section 25 - B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with Section 151 CPC against the order dated 28th July, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller (East), Karkardooma Court, Delhi, in eviction petition, being E -55/2011, filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25 -B of the Act.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the property bearing No.383/2011, East Azad Nagar, Delhi -110051 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property") was originally purchased by the mother of the petitioner Smt.Gulab Devi by Sale Deed dated 21st April, 1972. The respondent was inducted as a tenant in a shop measuring 10'X10' (hereinafter referred to as "the tenanted shop") on 16th July, 1981 on a monthly rent of Rs.150/ - excluding electricity and other charges. In 1998 the mother of the petitioner suffered a paralysis stroke on the right side portion of the body. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent thereafter started harassing the petitioner on one reason or the other. The petitioner filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act which is pending disposal. Since the respondent failed to tender the complete rent to the petitioner despite of issuing notice, the petitioner also filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act and is also pending against the respondent. The mother of the petitioner died on 6th November, 2009 and by virtue of the Will dated 10th February, 2006 the petitioner became the owner of the property as the remaining legal heirs, being two brothers and two sisters, had relinquished their rights in favour of the petitioner by virtue of Relinquishment Deed dated 10th November, 2010. The brothers of the petitioner have got other property bearing No.E -3/5, Krishna Nagar, Delhi -110051.

(3.) IT is stated by the petitioner that earlier one shop, adjacent to the tenanted shop, was under the tenancy of one Shiv Kumar. He left the shop in 2002 and the same is being used by the petitioner as main entrance to the house of the petitioner and for the parking of car and two wheeler. The site plan has been filed by the petitioner in support of his contention. The suit property is a two -sided open property and where the tenanted shop of the respondent opens, the road is about 120 ft. wide including one service lane and on the back side gali is only 15 ft. wide.