THAKUR DASS Vs. PARBATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Thakur Dass has filed this revision petitionagainst the order dated 2/09/1992 of Shri M.K. Gupta, AdditionalRent Controller, Delhi, thereby dismissing the application of the petitionerfor leave to defend and thus, passing an eviction order in favour of Smt.Parbati Devi, under Section 14(l)(e) read with Sec. 25-B of the Delhi RentControl Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") from the premises, shownin the site plan Ex. A-1, with a further direction that the order shall not be executable for a period of six months.

(2.) Smt. Parbati Devi (hereinafter referred to as "the Owner") filed a petition for eviction against Thakur Dass (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenant") under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act, inter alia pleading that she was the owner of House No. 265. Block-U, Street No. 4, Mangol Puri, Delhi, which was let out to the tenant in 1984 for residence on a monthly rent of Rs.125.00per month excluding water and electricity. It was also claimed that the said house was allotted to the petitioner by the DDA for residential purposes under the Special Housing Scheme on Hire Purchase basis, in accordance with the terms and conditions, stipulated in the DDA (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968 and being the only allottee, who has been regularly paying installments to (lie DDA. It has also been claimed that she has been residing on the first floor of tenanted portion, comprising of one small room along with temporary tin-shed kitchen and common verandah in premises No. 351, Dhawan Street, Subzi Mandi, Delhi along with her daughter's sons Narain Dass (aged 29 years) and Bhagwan Dass (aged 26 years) It has also been claimed that Narain Dass is marriage wife Smt. Raj Kumari and they have two children, who are also residing with her as members of the family. Further averments made in the petition have been that the premises in question are residential which are required for residence and she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi.

(3.) After the receipt of the notice of this eviction petition, an applicationalong with an affidavit was filed by the tenant that the tenanted premiseswere let out to him for residential-cum-commercial purposes and he has beenusing the same, both for residence and for the purposes of manufacturingcard-board boxes and supplying the same to the shopkeepers. Further avermentsmade in the affidavit have been that the owner has with her anotherhouse bearing Municipal No. 951, Dhawan Street, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, whichshe has been using for her residence for the last 30 years and that there wasno dependent on the petitioner who may require additional accommodation.It was also claimed that she was neither the owner nor the land-lord andthus, prayer was made for leave to defend the proceedings as several triableissues have been raised. 'A reply-affidavit was filed by Smt. Parbati Devi, controverting theaverments made by the tenant.