SAVITRISETH Vs. PARSHOTTAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is filed by the landlords against the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 6.5.1986 by which the Additional Rent Controller while finding all the aspects in favour of the petitioners i.e existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the petitioners being owners, the premises being let out for residential purposes, the petitioners not having any other alternative suitable accommodation, and that the petitioners required the premises bonafidely for their residence and family members, yet, dismissed the eviction petition filed under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act on the sole ground that eviction petition is only filed for a part of the tenanted premises inasmuch as one room of the tenancy has been illegally/forcibly taken possession of by the petitioners. Therefore, it is clear that though there is a finding on all aspects in favour of the petitioners with respect to the ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, eviction petition was dismissed allegedly and only on account of petitioners seeking partial eviction. This aspect of alleged partial eviction on which the eviction petition was dismissed, has however now achieved finality in terms of the judgment dated 25.10.2012 passed by Ms. Snigdha Sarvaria, Civil Judge, Central V, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the civil suit for possession filed by the respondent/tenant with respect to one room allegedly forcibly taken by the petitioners has been dismissed. Therefore, once the suit is dismissed, and the judgment dated 25.10.2012 has admittedly achieved finality, there does not remain any issue with respect to the partial eviction.

(2.) Really therefore what has to be decided is the cross objections which have been filed by the respondent/tenant and an application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Order VII Rule 7 & Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) which is allegedly filed by the respondent/tenant for additional evidence with respect to the subsequent events being CM No. 4097/98.

(3.) Let me first turn to the ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act and then examine them as to whether any case is made out as per the cross objections or that the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller on these aspects should be sustained. In a petition for bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, the following ingredients are required to be established by the landlords:-