SURJEET SINGH BHATIA Vs. SITARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4th December, 2010 whereby his petition for eviction of the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) was dismissed.

(2.) IN the eviction petition it was pleaded that the respondent was a tenant in premises No.210, Ground Floor, Pocket C -9, Sector -7, Rohini, New Delhi -85 at a monthly rent of Rs. 3000/ - per month excluding electricity and water charges. The premises was let out for residential purposes and the same was now required bona -fidely by the petitioner for residential purposes of his children who were dependent upon him and were of marriageable age. The petitioner was having one drawing room, one bed room which was quite insufficient for accommodating the family of the petitioner and at the time of creation of tenancy the children of the petitioner were unmarried and thus he did not require the accommodation at that time. It is stated that the petitioner requires one bed room for himself and his wife, one bed room for his son, one bed room for his daughter and one room for the guest. It is further stated that when the premises was let out, the petitioner was living at his father -inlaw's house along with his wife and at present he was living at Janakpuri which premises was not enough to accommodate Petitioner's family and his major children.

(3.) ON a notice being issued respondent's leave to defend application was filed which was allowed and thus written statement was filed. In the written statement, a preliminary objection was raised that the petitioner is the owner of three properties and thus the petition was liable to be dismissed on misrepresentation of facts. It was further stated that the petitioner was permanent resident of B -51, Ground Floor, Patel Nagar, New Delhi and having a small nuclear family. The tenanted premises was not required as the daughter would reside in her matrimonial house after her marriage. The house of the father -in -law of the petitioner fell to the share of his wife and she was exclusive owner of the premises in which the petitioner and his family were presently residing. The petitioner is also the owner of property bearing No. C -1/68, first floor, Janakpuri, New Dlehi which comprises of two rooms, kitchen, WC and bathroom and the same was lying vacant.