OM PRAKASH Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An eviction petition was filed by the respondent Gurdev Singh under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the DRC Act). In the eviction petition it was stated that Gurdev Singh was a senior citizen who has two sons and two daughters. Both the daughters were married. His two sons Tarsem and Dalvir had two children each. Dalvir Singh is residing in U.K. and keeps coming to Delhi to meet his family. Gurdev Singh is the owner of premises No. 507, Street No. 5A, Govindpuri, Kalkaji property admeasuring 116 sq.yards (in short the suit property) consists of ground floor, first floor in which 5 rooms on the ground floor have been let out to 5 tenants and out of 5 rooms on the first floor 3 are occupied by the other tenants and one room is in occupation of Om Prakash which is the tenanted premises in question. Thus, the tenanted premises with Om Prakash comprises of one room measuring 8 feet x 8 feet, common latrine and bathroom on a monthly rent of Rs. 1420/- excluding water and electricity charges. Gurdev Singh also owns property No. C-502, sheet No.5A Govindpuri measuring 75 sq.yds. which consists of ground floor, first floor and second floor and one room on the third floor. On the ground floor family of younger son of Gurdev Singh is residing i.e. Dalvir Singh's wife and two children and Dalvir Singh who is residing in U.K. often visits them. On the first floor elder son Tarsem Singh is residing with his family. Gurdev Singh is living on the second floor. The third floor is being used as a store room. It is stated that the tenanted premises in the suit property i.e. H.No. 507/5A was required bonafide by Gurdev Singh for using as a residence for himself and his family members who are dependent on him as they have no other reasonably suitable accommodation. Both the sons who have grown up children want their own separate share in the property and thus the suit property 507/5A was required for the use of the family. It is further stated that the premises is old and is required to be re-constructed. Report of the architect in favour of Gurdev Singh was also placed on record.

(2.) Conditional leave to defend was granted to Om Prakash vide order dated 21st August, 2013 only on the aspect that the other tenants of the premises have vacated the property or not. Therefore the evidence was led only with regard to whether the other tenants have vacated the suit property. Gurdev Singh examined himself, his daughter-in-law Rajinder Kaur and elder son Tarsem Singh whereas the defendant examined himself, Constable Manoj Kumar and R.C. Meena as the witnesses.

(3.) The learned ARC vide the impugned order dated 26th May, 2014 allowing the eviction petition held that Gurdev Singh has been able to prove that all the other 9 tenants have vacated except Om Prakash and thus an eviction order was passed.