DEVENDER SINGH & ANR Vs. RENUKA KANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns an order dated 4th October, 2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller allowing the respondent/tenant's application for leave to defend, in an eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord. The latter had sought the tenanted premises i.e., House No. 1449/127-B, First Floor, 100 Feet Road, Durgapuri, Delhi-110093 on the ground of bonafide need, under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ( "the Act"). The impugned order had restricted the leave to defend only to the issues of: whether the petitioners had bonafide requirement of the premises and whether any other reasonable suitable accommodation was available to them

(2.) It was submitted that the petitioners/landlords have four sons and a daughter; that the elder son namely Parveen was married and residing separately at C-543, Hanuman Mandirwali Road, Ashok Nagar, Delhi and this residential accommodation was on a land admeasuring 50 sq. yds. and was exclusively only for Parveen and his family; that in House No. 1449/127-B, 100 Feet Road, Durgapuri, Delhi-110093, the ground floor was being used for dairy business, while the first floor was occupied by the tenant; that out of the other three sons of the petitioners, Ravinder Kumar and Pankaj (twins) were 23 years old and the other son namely Harinder Kumar was 21 years of age, as on the date of filing of the eviction petition; that were to marry, but due to lack of requisite accommodation, were constrained from doing so; that even their pursuit of higher education was said to be suffering because of lack of adequate space for studying. It was also contended that their current accommodation had no guestroom thus, causing the entire family, immense inconvenience and hardship whenever the married daughter would visit them alongwith her husband. It was further contended that although the premises was rented out for residential purpose, it was malafidely being used by the tenant for commercial purposes.

(3.) In the application for leave to defend, the tenant had averred that there was no bonafide need and the petitioners were motivated only by avarice, to re-let the vacated premises at a higher rent; that the eviction petitioner had a number of other properties from which they were earning "handsome" rents. A list of the following properties was given in support of this contention: (i) property bearing No.C-550, Ashok Nagar, Gali No.7, (ii) property bearing No.C-549, Ashok Nagar, Gali No.7, (iii) property bearing No.C-543, Ashok Nagar, Gali No.7 and (iv) property bearing No.12/1, 40ft. Road Krishan Vihar, Mandoli Road, Delhi. It was further contended that the petitioners/landlords had two other properties in D Block, Ashok Nagar, Delhi; that earlier on 10.06.2007, the landlords had forcibly tried to re-enter and take possession of the suit property against which an FIR No.317/2007 was registered with P.S. Mansarover Park and it was pending trial. It was further contended that the property was taken on rent sometime in August, 1997; that rent was enhanced from time to time; that since May 2007, the tenant was constrained to deposit the rent in the Court because the landlords avoided accepting it. The landlords however, refuted these contentions and submitted that no triable issue had been raised in the application.