KANTA GUPTA Vs. GOVERDHAN DASS DAGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of these petitions, brought under proviso to Sec. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner/landlord has challenged dismissal after full dress trials of the two eviction petitions under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act pertaining to two different portions (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject premises') on ground floor of the larger premises bearing No. 1779, Kucha Latto Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi. The factual and legal matrix being similar, these petitions are taken up together for disposal through this common judgment. On notice, the respondents/tenants entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides and examined the trial court record.

(2.) Briefly stated, circumstances leading to the present petitions are as follows.

(3.) During final arguments, learned counsel for petitioner/landlord took me through the above record and contended that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the petitioner/landlord had successfully established her cases under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act. It was submitted on behalf of petitioner/landlord that according to the testimony of PW1, the tenants Ram Devi and Prakash Chand vacated the portions in their respective possession in or about 1992 and 2013 respectively but the date, month or year, when the remaining tenants vacated the portions in their respective occupancy are not known. It was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner/landlord that the tenant Gopal Bhargav continued to be in tenancy even at the time of filing the eviction petition. Learned counsel for petitioner/landlord contended that although the facts pertaining to the remaining portions of the said larger premises were not disclosed in the eviction petitions, but those facts were clearly brought out in the testimony of petitioner and her son, so there is no concealment.