LILA WATI DEV Vs. MOHINDER KUMAR JUNEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under proviso to Clause 8 of S. 25B of the Delhi Rent Act, 1958 (for short the Act), is directed against the order dated July 19, 1980 passed by Shri Shiv Gharan Kain, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

(2.) On April 16, 1977 Sarvashri Mohinder Kumar Juneja, Romesh Kumar Joneja and Pran Nath Joneja, respondents herein, brought an application claiming eviction of the petitioner Smt. Lila Wati Dev under proviso (e) to Sub-section 1 of Section 14 read with Section 25 (b) of the Act. It was averred that the respondents-landlords were owners of the premises in dispute. The same had been let out for residential purposes and were bona fide required by them for their occupation as residence for themselves and members of their family and they were not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation. It was explained that all the three petitioners were married. Romesh Kumar and Pran Nath Joneja had two children and one child respectively. Mohinder Kumar Juneja and Romesh Kumar Joneja were Chartered Accountants earning Rupees 30 thousand and 15 thousand per annum and they were men of status. The accommodation with them was not sufficient inasmuch as they had no drawing room, no dining room and no puja room.

(3.) Pursuant to the receipt of the summons under Section 25B the petitioner Smt. Leila Wati Dev filed an application seeking leave to defend the petition. In the affidavit filed alongwith the application, the please sought to be raised are (i) the father of the present respondent had left one daughter also and the present respondents alone were not competent to file the application; (ii) the tenancy had not been terminated ; (iii) Dr. Tej Bhan Dev the original tenant had also left two sons and two daughters besides the widow i.e. the petitioner) (iv) the petition was malafide. The respondents were in occupation of seven large rooms, two stores, kitchen, two bath rooms etc. and (v) earlier an eviction petition had been filed by Amar Dass Juneja, father of the respondents against the husband of the petitioner in which it was held that the ground for bona fide requirement was not available.