UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. RAJENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 25th July, 2013 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to defend in an eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short DRC Act) the petitioner prefers the present petition.

(2.) The petitioner pleaded in the eviction petition that he along with his brother purchased property bearing No. WZ-246A, Plot No.5, Inderpuri, New Delhi vide registered sale deed on 6th March, 2004. A portion of the said property having carpet area measuring 471 sq.feet on the ground floor shown in red colour in the site plan was let out by the previous owner to the petitioner herein for running a Sub Post Office. After the suit property was purchased a family settlement was arrived at between the respondent and his brother and the portion situated on the west side including tenanted portion fell to the share of the respondent, hence the respondent was the owner and landlord of the tenanted premises. It was further stated that tenanted premises was let out to the petitioner vide lease deed dated 7th February, 1984 for a period of five years @ Rs. 1413 per month. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 before this Court in view of the Arbitration Clause in the lease deed, however this Court vide order dated 16th July, 1996 held that in view of the statutory tenancy being created, the petitioner could be evicted only in accordance with the provisions of DRC Act, 1958 and the same cannot be decided by the Arbitrator. However, the dispute with regard to the market rent was referred to the Arbitrator for adjudication, though no Arbitrator has been appointed. This order was challenged in appeal by the respondent which was dismissed. Hence to the extent of maintainability of the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act it cannot be now disputed.

(3.) In the eviction petition it was further stated that the respondent along with his family comprising of his wife, three children aged 15 years, 14 years and 4 years and his parents was residing in a Janta Flat H-140, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi which was owned by his mother. The said Janta Flat has only two rooms which are insufficient for the respondent and his family members and he bonafidely needs at least 4 bed rooms, drawing room, dining room, one pooja room besides bath rooms, kitchen, etc. According to the eviction petition, the suit property besides the tenanted premises on the ground floor comprises of two small rooms on the back side of the Post Office and a hall and two rooms being used as store by the respondent on the first floor. It is stated that the two small rooms at the back portion of the tenanted premises cannot be used for residential purposes unless the tenanted premises is merged under the two rooms. Further there is no independent access to the said rooms on the back side and the respondent is presently using the ingress and egress to the said room from the portion of his brother.