O P SONI Vs. OM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's petition under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the eviction order passed against him by the Addl. Rent Controller. The respondents landlords had instituted an eviction petition against the petitioner herein in the year 1984 under clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act which was ultimately allowed by the Addl. Rent Controller vide the impugned judgment dated 9th March 1994

(2.) The necessary facts are that the property in suit was purchased by the respondents vide registered sale deed dated 27th February 1979. The father of the respondents, namely, Dr.Harikishan Dass Nanda retired from Govt. service as A.D.M.O., Central Hospital, Northern Railway in the year 1976. Until his retirement he had a government bungalow provided to him as part of his service by the Govt. He was residing in the said bungalow alongwith his family consisting of himself, his wife, four sons (out of whom two are the respondents) and a daughter. After his retirement the father had to vacate the Govt. accommodation and he first rented a premises in New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, where he started living alongwith his entire family. After the purchase of the present property in the year 1979 the entire family shifted to the property in suit. They got vacant possession of the ground floor of the property at the time of its purchase because on the first floor the present petitioner was already a tenant. On the second floor there was another tenant. The property was purchased by the two brothers who are respondents herein for the benefit of the entire family of their parents and the family did not own any other property at the relevant time. The respondents had to wait for five years after the purchase of the property in view of the statutory provision contained in the Act. The present eviction petition was filed on 3rd April 1984. At the time of institution of the eviction petition, the entire family consisted of the aged parents of the respondents, respondent No.1 having a wife and two daughters. Respondent No.2 having a wife and two daughters. The other two brothers, namely,Ashok Kumar and Kamal Kumar were also married having two children each. There is no serious dispute about the accommodation available with the respondents/landlords on the ground floor of the property in suit which consists of two bedrooms, a drawing-cum-dining room, a store, kitchen, bath and W.C.

(3.) In the impugned judgment the Addl. Rent Controller found that the respondents are owners of the property in suit. There is no dispute in the present case about letting purpose of the premises. The Addl. Rent Controller further found that the premises under the tenancy of the petitioner herein is bona fide required by the respondents for their residence and the residence of their family members dependent upon them. Accordingly an eviction order was passed.