DEVKI NANDAN Vs. RAVI KANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 25(B)(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act') is filed challenging the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 5.5.2011 by which the Additional Rent Controller has after trial decreed the eviction petition for bona fide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act in favour of the respondent herein/landlord and against the petitioners/tenants with respect to first floor and second floor of the property bearing no. 387(386 -D), Bagh Kare Khan, Delhi. The tenanted premises comprises of two rooms, kitchen, latrine and bathroom as shown in red colour in the site plan attached to the petition.

(2.) RESPONDENT /landlord claimed the tenanted premises for bona fide residential use of his family which comprised of himself, his wife, one son Sandeep aged 20 years and two daughters namely Shikha, aged about 23 years and Poonam, aged about 21 years respectively. Respondent stated that he was living in property no. 388, Gali no. 5, Bagh Kare Khan, Delhi -7 which belonged to his mother Smt. Vidyawanti having been purchased by her vide sale deed Ex.PW1/7. Not only that this property belonging to the mother was not available to the respondent and his family as of right, but also the fact of the matter is that the respondent was having in the property of his mother only one room besides kitchen and common bath, latrine on the ground floor shown 'X' and in yellow colour in site plan, and which accommodation was grossly insufficient for needs of the respondent and his family. The other portion of the property of the mother was occupied by the mother herself (marked as 'X -1'), three other sons and three daughters. Portion marked as 'X -2' in the site plan was with one son Pawan and his family members whereas the portion marked 'X -3' and 'X -4' situated on the first floor was in the possession of Sh. Anil Kumar (another son) and his family members. Portions 'X -5' and 'X -6' were with another brother of the respondent namely Lalit and which portions were on the second floor. The married sisters of the respondent also visited and stayed with the mother of the respondent in the property. The respondent therefore had been in need of the tenanted premises not only because the premises in which he was staying he had no right but also the accommodation was grossly insufficient for the respondent and his family because each of the child of the respondent needed separate rooms including for their studies.

(3.) A reading of the impugned judgment shows that the Additional Rent Controller has rightly arrived at the finding of relationship of landlord and tenant because the petitioners admitted that the suit premises were let out by the respondent herein. Even in the earlier petition the witness of the petitioners RW -1 on cross -examination admitted that petitioner was paid the rent. In any case, in law once the respondent was admitted to be a landlord of the suit property, and petitioners were tenants, as per Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872 petitioners were estopped from challenging the ownership of the respondent. This aspect has been rightly dealt with by the court below in para 8(A) of the impugned judgment and which reads as under: