BABU LAL Vs. ATULKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition filed under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act ( DRCA) impugns the order dated 31.5.2013 wherein the application for leave to defend was rejected by the SCJ-cum-RC, Tis Hazari Courts.

(2.) The brief facts required for consideration are that the respondents herein (landlords) filed for an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the Act occupying the premises situated at Property No. 2834, Pucca Katra, Katra Khushal Rai, Kinari Bazar, Delhi- 6. The landlord filed the eviction petition claiming that the property was required for their own accommodation as they did not have sufficient accommodation for both their families. It is the case if the landlords that they do not have sufficient rooms to accommodate their entire family and require the tenanted premises; that in all they need about 10-14 rooms in order to accommodate all the members of their family. The landlords have given a detailed requirement on the number of rooms they need which is recorded in the impugned order.

(3.) In his application for leave to defend, the tenant contested the eviction petition on the ground that there was no bona fide requirement by the landlords and that the tenant has been in possession of the tenanted premises for 100 years and the tenant is aware of the fact that the landlord has additional accommodation which has not been put to use. The tenant claimed that the landlords are not the true owners of the property. The tenant further states that he does not consider the present respondents as his landlord, thereby negating the existence of a tenant-landlord relationship. The tenant alleges that the landlord has two other properties which should be occupied rather than evicting the tenant.