SHAKUNTALA GUPTA Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlady is the petitioner before me. She sought eviction of the respondent under Section 14(l)(e) and 14(l)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is not necessary to refer to the grounds urged under Section 14(l)(a) because the learned Counsel for the petitioner has confined the case to the claim under Sub-clause (e) on the ground that the respondent had paid the rents subsequently.

(2.) The parties are residing in the same building. There is no dispute that the landlady has 3 sons, 3 daughters-in-law and 12 grand children. This figure is with reference to the date of the trial. Material on record also discloses that the grand children were aged between 2 to 15 years at that time. The landlady has three married daughters.

(3.) It is also necessary to note that the property originally belonged to the husband of the petitioner and he left a WILL under which a life estate was given to the landlady and the remainder was given to the sons and therefore, all the sons have substantial interest in the premises.