BALMUKAND Vs. ANUJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE order dated 17th July, 2012 the eviction petition filed by the petitioners was allowed under Section 14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short "the Act") and an eviction order was passed in respect of the suit premises i.e. two rooms and open courtyard at ground floor at 10343/7784, Gali no. 3, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. PW2/11, however the eviction petition to the extent it sought vacation of the suit premises under Section 14(1)(h) of the DRC Act was dismissed as not maintainable.

(2.) THE order dated 17th July, 2012 passed by the Ld. Additional Rent Controller (arc) was challenged by the Respondent before the Ld. Rent Control Tribunal which set aside the order of the Ld. ARC on the ground that the petitioners have not been able to prove that the premises was let out to the respondent for residential purposes. No cross appeal having been filed by the petitioners qua the dismissal of their eviction petition under Section 14(1)(h) of the DRC Act, the decision of the Ld. ARC to the said extent has attained finality. Thus the scope of the present petition is confined to the grounds of eviction available to the petitioners under Section 14(1)(d) of the DRC Act only.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that while setting aside the order of the Ld. ARC and Ld. Rent Controller relied on cash memos, rent agreement, rent receipts which were forged and fabricated and the learned Tribunal failed to notice that the copies of the counter foils of the rent receipts issued in respect of the suit premises were the ones issued for residential tenancies of the petitioner and the Tribunal also failed to notice that the suit premises was lying locked.