KANCHAN KAPOOR Vs. SARWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') impugning the judgment of the of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 4.6.2011 which has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioners/tenants and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act with respect to the tenanted premises being two rooms, store, kitchen, bathroom, W.C on the ground floor together with one mezzanine room between ground and first floor above the garage of the property bearing no. D-95, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007.

(2.) The facts of the case are a bit curious to say the least inasmuch as, respondent/landlord claims to be the owner on the ground that he was a servant working with the owner namely one Mr. Dayal Dass Talwar and his daughter-in-law Smt. Vidyawati and that the respondent became the owner of the suit property by virtue of a registered Will dated 17.3.1988 executed by Smt. Vidyawati who had become the owner of the suit property after the death of her father-in-law Sh. Dayal Dass Talwar. Respondent/landlord claims that tenants originally were Sh. Roop Lal Sehgal and his wife Smt. Kailash Wati and the present petitioners are the legal heirs of Sh. Roop Lal Sehgal and Smt. Kailash Wati. The bonafide necessity eviction petition was filed claiming that the tenanted premises are required for the bonafide residential need of the respondent and his family members.

(3.) A reading of the impugned judgment shows that the same is cryptic to say the least because there is lack of adequate discussion in the judgment with respect to the family members of the respondent, the accommodation already available and consequent bonafide need and more importantly as to how the respondent has been held to be the owner of the premises. The only effective discussion with respect to ownership of the respondent is given in para 10 of the impugned judgment and the same reads as under:-