DARSHAN KUMAR MALHOTRA Vs. SUNDER LAL TANEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner has assailed the judgement of Addl. Rent Controller whereby he granted an eviction order in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.

(2.) The facts in brief are that Sunder Lal Taneja, respondent herein, is the owner/ landlord of premises No.J-73, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The ground floor of said premises, comprising of four rooms, one kitchen, one bath, latrine and a courtyard were let out for residential purposes to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.350.00 exclusive of water and electricity, which rent was subsequently increased in October, 1984 toRs.500.00 per month. So far as the landlord is concerned, his family consists of himself, his wife, his married son Jitender and his wife. Apart from that, his other unmarried son Sanjay Taneja is also residing with him. The wife of his deceased's son Smt. Chanchal Taneja and his grand daughter, Pooja Taneja. aged about 11 years were earlier residing with him but had to shift <PG>247</PG> to her parents house under compelling circumstances. Now his daughter-in-law and grand daughter want to shift back and live in this house. The respondent is a man of means having his own farm house in Rajasthan and also carries on transport business. He is in possession of four rooms on the first floor of the suit property along with a room at the barsati floor. This accommodation according to the respondent, is not sufficient for him and the members of his family dependent on him. He suffered heart ailments and his wife finds it difficult to climb the stairs, therefore, they also need the accommodation on the ground floor. His son Sanjay Taneja is of marriageable age. Sanjay also requires an independent room for himself, hence the accommodation with the respondent is not sufficient.

(3.) Leave to contest was sought by the present petitioner which was granted. In the written statement, lie took the plea that the respondent is neither the owner r the landlord of the premises in question. Petitioner denied that the respondent has no other reasonable suitable accommodation for himself and for the members of his family, He denied that the respondent required the premises bonafide. The accommodation with the landlord is sufficient. Evidence was led and ultimately on the basis of the p73 evidence, a decree for eviction has been passed against the petitioner holding that the respondent is the landlord/owner of the premises and he requires the premises bonafide for himself and for the members of his family.