RAJIV JOSHI Vs. R.B. SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the eviction order dated 23rd January, 2012 passed against the petitioner by the ARC -01, (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are that the respondent, a retired Government employee, residing at 317 -M, BB Chatterjee Road, Calcutta along with his wife, two sons, one daughter -in -law and one granddaughter, filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in respect of one hall with attached room on the ground floor of property bearing No. B -2/19, Krishan Nagar, Delhi -51 (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted premises") on the ground of bonafide requirement for residential occupation of his family since he along with his family want to migrate to and settle in Delhi. It was further stated that the tenanted premises were let out to the petitioner for residential purpose at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/ - on 1st October, 2009.

(2.) IT was also stated in the eviction petition that the first floor of the said property is being occupied by the eldest son of the respondent wherein he resides alongwith his family (i.e. his wife and two children) while as on the second floor, two brothers -in -law of the eldest son are residing. It is stated in the eviction petition that the tenanted premises is required by the respondent as the same is suitable for him and his wife to reside, who are very old and also that the other son of the respondent who is a Chartered Accountant, wants to practice therein.

(3.) IT was further averred that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the year 1989 by the respondent in the tenanted premises and the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ - towards Pagri. It was stated that the rate of rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,500/ - from Rs. 700/ - per month during the passage of time. It was also stated that while the petitioner had been paying rent to the eldest son of the respondent, in May, 2007 he refused to accept the rent and asked the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,000/ - per month as rent. While the talks of compromise were going on between the parties, the petitioner received summons in a suit for possession filed by the respondent alleging that the tenanted premises were given for taking care thereof and that the petitioner had started using the same for commercial purposes as per his own wish. It was stated by the petitioner that in the said suit a compromise was arrived at between the parties and a compromise order was passed thereon whereby the rate of rent was increased to Rs. 2,000/ - and the petitioner was given the right to renew the agreement after a lapse of 11 months and therefore, as per the terms and conditions of tenancy by virtue of the agreement dated 1st October, 2009, the tenancy cannot be terminated and the request to renew the same must be catered to.