KESHAV METAL WORKS Vs. JITENDER KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/.s. Keshav Metal Works and Mrs. Manorma Vaid, petitioners herein were tenant in the premises bearing No.A-8/A-7/2 New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Respondent, Mr. J.K. Verma,landlord of the premises sought the eviction under Section 14(1) (c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the DRC Act) on the ground of bonafide requirement. Brief facts are that the owner of the premises Mr.J.K.Verma was working in the Steel Authority of India Ltd at Delhi. He was transferred to Burnpur and thereafter retransferred to Delhi. He had taken loan from his employer for raising construction on the premises in question. His employer some where in June 1981 look the decision that those of the employees who had been sanctioned House Building Advance for building a house at the place of their posting should vacate the company allotted house./ lease accommodation within a period of one year l'rom the date of issue of the said circular. This decision was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 4.2.82. Since he was to vacate the company allotted house he needed this premises for his bonafide requirement for himself and members of his family as he had no alternative accommodation available except the premises in question.

(2.) Summons were served on the present petitioners who sought leave to defend. The same was allowed. The petitioners herein filed written submissions raising preliminary objections, inter alia, that another petition on the same ground was pending before the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter called in short ARC), therefore, this petition for bonafide requirement was not maintainable. On merit they took the plea that the premises was let out for residential -cum-commercial purposes and that they were residing in the premises and also allending to the business from this very premises, and that the landlord did not require premises for his residence.

(3.) Evidence was led by both the parties. The trial court after going through the pleadings and the evidence adduced and also taking into consideration the essential ingredients of Section 14 (l)(e) of the D.R.C.Act, namely : (i) whether the landlord was the owner of the premises; (ii) whcther it waslet out for residential purposes, (iii) whether it was required for himself and member of his family and (iv) whether he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation , came to the conclusion that the premises was <PG>208</PG> required bonafide. While taking note of the above four ingreredients, the trial court came to the conclusion that Shri J.K.Verma was the the landlord \owner and that the premises was let out for residential purpose only and that the same was required bonafide by the owner and that he had no alternative accommodation available.The A.R.C. passed eviction order against the present petitioners.