SRIRAM Vs. BIMLA RANI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner challenges the order dated 30th October, 2013 whereby the eviction petition filed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 14 (1) (a) & (e) read with Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') was allowed and the Petitioner was directed to vacate the tenanted premises.

(2.) In the eviction petition, the Respondent No.1 stated that the Respondent had purchased the entire suit property bearing No. S-221/132A, Vishnu Garden, S-Block, New Delhi from the Petitioner and thereafter let out one room, kitchen and common WC and bathroom on tenancy at monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- on 2nd September, 2002 to the Petitioner. The Petitioner neither paid nor tendered rent w.e.f. 2nd October, 2002 despite two months legal notice dated 7th September, 2004 and 15th April, 2008. It was further stated that the Respondent No.1 bona fidely required the suit premises for the reason that her husband Respondent No.2 was posted as Divisional Engineer in MTNL, Delhi and thus it was very difficult for her husband to commute from Rohtak to Delhi every day. Further her younger son was a student of B.E. and was soon going to take admission in Delhi.

(3.) In the written statement filed the Petitioner stated that there was no relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. The Petitioner was in possession of the entire property except one room which had been forcibly occupied by the Respondents. The Petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the Respondents when the Respondent No.1 and her husband got signed blank papers from the Petitioner. The said documents were signed by the Petitioner as security of the money and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. He further stated that he did not receive any notice and there was no requirement of the Respondents for the premises. In the written statement however, the Petitioner admitted that the husband of Respondent No.1 was a government servant and residing at Rohtak and one room of the suit premises was in possession of the Respondents. An order under Section 15 (1) of the DRC Act was passed on 6th July, 2009 which was not complied with and hence the defence of the Petitioner was struck under Section 15 (7) of the DRC Act.