RAJENDRA KATARIA Vs. BALDESH KUMAR KAUSHIK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impugner the order dated 8th April, 2011 whereby his application for leave to defend, the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the DRC Act) has been dismissed.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed an eviction petition claiming himself to be the co -owner of premises bearing No. 699 Chirag Delhi measuring 500 sq. ft. along with respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The said tenanted premises was let out to the petitioner for commercial purpose for running a clinic on a monthly rent of Rs. 187/ - excluding water and electricity charges. It was stated that the respondent No. 1 required the tenanted premises for the bona -fide residence of himself as well as other family members dependent on him as he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi or elsewhere. It was further stated that respondent No. 1 was residing at House No. 836/11, Chirag Delhi measuring 100 sq.yds. with his family and the family of deceased brother late Shri Pratap Singh who were impleaded as respondent No. 2 to 4 in the eviction petition. According to the respondent No. 1 his family comprised of himself, his wife, his two sons namely Lalit Kaushik aged about 25 years and Dhiraj Kaushik aged about 23 years, wife of his deceased brother Smt. Anu Kaushik, daughter of the deceased brother Pooja aged 23 years and son of deceased brother Bhupesh Kaushik. It is further stated that the accommodation consisted of only 5 rooms which were highly insufficient for the requirement of the family which was growing. Further that the elder son of the respondent Lalit Kaushik, Bhupesh Kumar and Ms. Pooja son and daughter of his deceased brother were all of marriageable age but the marriage could not be performed due to shortage of accommodation. The respondent did not even have a proper drawing room to entertain the guests. The respondent No. 1 has married sisters who also often visit the house along with their family members and children.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit to the leave to defend application the respondent No. 1 denied that the house consisted of 20 rooms excluding the kitchen, toilet and bathroom or that 13 rooms had been let out, or that they had been given on rent within a course of about an year or so. It is further denied that the tenanted premises was more than 1 and 1/2 furlong away from the house of the petitioner. It is stated that on being vacated the tenanted premises can be converted into a livable accommodation.