B B GANDHI Vs. DHARAM INDER MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is directed against an order dated 29th August, 1981 of an Additional Rent Controller whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner or leave to defend and passed an order of eviction against the petitioner underclause (e) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this Revision Petition briefly are that Sh. Dharam Inder Madan and Krishan Lal Madan, respondents 1 and 2 are real brothers and Smt. Indrawati, respondent No. 3 is their real sister. On 2nd December, 1980, the respondents made an application for eviction of the petitioner from the desmised premises viz. a portion of first floor as detailed in para8 of the eviction petition of House No. 18/15, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of respondent No. 1 as residence for himself and members of his family. It was an avrred that respondent No. 1 was due to retire on 31st December, 1980 from the service of Haryana State Government with whom he was employed as Sub-Divisional Officer (Irrigation Department). So, he needed the premises in question for him self and members of his family which consisted of himself, his wife, two sons and one daughter as he wanted to settle in Delhi after his retirement and bad no other accommodation in Delhi.

(3.) He inter alia explained that the plot of land upon which the property in question was built bad been allotted to him and his father Sh. Het Ram Madan by the Ministry of Rehabilitation on permanent basis and the building in question had been contructed with the funds of himself, his father and his brother Krishan Lal Madan respondent No. 2. Het Ram Madan died in the year 1966 leaving behind the respondents as his only legal heirs. However, by mutual arrangements between them respondent No. I was allotted the first floor, respondent No. 2 was allotted the ground floor and respondent No. 3 was allotted Barsati floor of the property in question. Accordingly respondents, 2 and 3 were receiving rent from the tenants occupying the ground floor and the barasati while respondent No. 1 was owner/landlord of the premises in question. However, respondent 2 and 3 had been joined as parties to the eviction petition to avoid any possible objection of non-joinder of necessary parties, although no relief was claimed by the respondents 2 and 3 against the petitioner and they do not claim any right or interest in the first floor.