RAGHAV Vs. SATISH KUMAR SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition impugns an order dated 15.7.2013, whereby the petitioner/tenant's application for leave to defend has been rejected and an eviction order apropos tenanted premises comprising: one room of 8ft. X 10ft., one kitchen of 7ft. X 5ft., one verandah/balcony with a tin shed of 8ft. X 4.6ft. and one lobby of 5.6ft. X 4.6ft. in the eastern portion of the first floor of property bearing No.3164, Ward XI, Kucha Tara Chand, Darya Ganj, New Delhi -110002. The landlord/eviction petitioner had sought the premises on the ground of bona fide need.

(2.) THE eviction -petitioner's case was that the tenancy of Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, father of the present petitioners, existed prior to the purchase of the property by his mother Smt. Savitri Devi, vide registered sale documents. During his lifetime Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma accepted as a tenant of Smt. Savitri Devi @ Rs.36/ - per month, excluding other charges. Rent receipts were issued by Smt. Savitri Devi. Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma expired on 2.4.2001 and since then his L.Rs. - the present tenants, have been in possession of the premises. The eviction -petitioner claimed ownership of the tenanted premises through a Will executed by his mother, Smt. Savitri Devi, on 14.2.1999. The Will apportioned certain portions of the suit property to the petitioner and some to his brother, Shri Brahmajit Saini. After the demise of Smt. Savitri Devi, Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma started paying rent to the petitioner and the last rent paid was Rs.144/ - for four (4) months, from October, 2000 to January, 2001, @ Rs.36/ - per month. After the demise of the said tenant - Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, his L.Rs. defaulted in payment of rent despite the repeated demands by the eviction -petitioner in this regard. The petitioner contended that he survived on whatever meagre earning his wife earned by sewing ladies clothes at home; that he was about 65 years old; that they had a daughter aged about 18 years, who was studying in Gargi College, Delhi, therefore, a separate accommodation was required for her, particularly, for the advancement of her studies; that the accommodation available with him comprising two rooms on the first floor and a store room on the second floor was insufficient and inconvenient particularly regarding the layout of the house where one room was being used as bedroom and the other connected room was being used as a drawing -cum - guest room and the room on the second floor which was smaller in size was used as a store, therefore, it was inconvenient for residence or "study" purposes. The eviction -petitioner contended that he lacked the resources to either buy or construct any other additional accommodation. Therefore, he claimed, he had a bona fide need for the tenanted premises and the eviction of the tenant therefrom was urgently warranted.

(3.) THE eviction -petitioner denied the averments made in the application for leave to defend. He asserted that he did not own or possess any other property in Delhi and had a right over the tenanted premises by virtue of his mother's Will.