INDER SINGH Vs. SHANKUTLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Inder Singh has filed this revision petition against the judgement dated 5.12.1990 of Shri Rakesh Kapur, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, vide which the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that Smt.Shakuntia, the landlady, was inbonafide requirement of the premises in question and, thus, passed the decree for eviction under Section . 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in her favour and against the petitioner tenant. There was a further direction that this order of eviction would be effective after a lapse of six months from the date of this order.

(2.) . Smt.Shakuntla Devi(hereinafter referred to as the landlady') filed a petition under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act against Inder singh for his eviction from the portions shown red in the plan attached with the petition in premises bering No-2193, Kucha Akil Khan, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi.

(3.) . Briefly stated, the averments made in the petition were that Inder Singh was in possession of two rooms, kolki and latrine on the ground floor with terrace on payment of Rs.l2/=-per month as rent, exclusive of other charges. It was also pleaded that respondent was an old tenant in the said property which was purchased by the petitioner on 4.4.79 vide Sale Deed and, thus, Inder Singh became her tenant by operation of law. It was also claimed that the premises in dispute were let out to the respondent for residential purpose and are required by the landlady for her own use as also residence of members of her family dependent on her and that she has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Further averments made in the petition have been that her family consisted of herself, her husband, four sons and a married daughter. According to her, the eldest son, Subhash, was married having wife and two children and both the children are school going. She has also calimed that her second.son, Ashok Kumar, was married having wife and two children out of whom one was school going and that the third son, Vijay Kumar, was also married having wife and one child; while the fourth son was of marriageable age and in this way there were 14 members of her family. She has also pleaded that she alongwith her husband and youngest son, Ajay Kumar, and one servant was living in one room temporarily partitioned by wood, temporary kolki of the store on the first floor of the property bearing No.2030, Santosh Kutir, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, and they cook their food in aportion of the Dalhan in front of that room, which accommodation was under the tenancy of her husband. It has also been pleaded that her other sons are in occupation of two small rooms and one other room temporarily partitioned in between on the ground floor and one room, kitchen, bath, latrine on the first floor of the property bearing No-2193, Kucha Akil Khan, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, lt has also been pleaded that there was no drawing room or study room or any accommodation to accommodate the visitors and also the married daughter and son-in-law who have been coming to her alongwith their child, lt was also claimed that the respondent was in arrears of rent.