JAGDISH CHANDER GULATI Vs. KANTA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision petition under section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment of the Additional Controller, Delhi dated 5th September 1991 whereby the Additional Controller passed an eviction order in favour of the respondent landlady regarding the suit premises under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. By the impugned judgment the Addl. Controller disposed of two eviction petitions. Two petitions were filed by the respondent landlady because there were two tenancies with respect to two portions of the same property bearing No.E-357, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. The petitioner tenant is common in both the cases. One petition was regarding a room on the ground floor (backside) of the property while the other petition was filed with respect to accommodation comprising of barsati (second floor) having one big room, kitchen, latrine and bath and a small store.

(2.) The case of the respondent landlady in the eviction petitions was that she is the owner and landlady of the suit premises. The premises was let out for residential purpose only by the previous owner Shri Krishan Lal Gulati who happened to be elder brother of the tenant in the present case. The suit property bearing No.E-357, greater Kailash-1, New Delhi was purchased by one Navrattan Kumar, father-in-law of the respondent landlady vide registered sale deed dated 18th March 1971. Navrattan Kumar died on 24th June 1983 leaving behind a registered Will with respect to the property in suit whereby the suit property was bequeathed to the respondent landlady. Thus the petitioner tenant became a tenant under the respondent landlady byoperation of law. It was further pleaded that the premises was required bona fide for residence by the landlady for herself and members of her family dependent upon her for residence and neither the landlady nor her husband or her son own any other alternative accommodation in Delhi suitable for their residential requirement. The family of the landlady at the time of filing of the petition consisted of herself, her husband, one son named Pankaj Kumar and a daughter. At the time of institution of the eviction petition the husband of the landlady was in government service as Superintending Engineer, Bulandsheher, U.P. Both the eviction petitions are dated 22nd December 1984 and were filed on 4th January 1985. The husband of the landlady was due to retire in November 1986. According to the landlady after retirement of her husband she wanted to settle down alongwith her family in the property in suit. The son of the landlady was a Chartered Accountant aged 27 and half years at that time and was due for marriage. Likewise the daughter of the landlady had already done her M.Sc. All these persons were stated to be dependent on the landlady for purposes of residence. She expressed a desire to settle down in Delhi also for the reason that all her near relations were settled in Delhi. The case of bona fide requirement for the suit premises was pleaded on these lines.

(3.) In the eviction petition itself it was mentioned that the father-in-law of the landlady had filed an eviction petition against the present tenant under section 14(1)(e) of the Act. On his death the landlady had applied for substitution in his place. However, the application for substitution was rejected on the ground that the requirement of the landlady had not been pleaded in the said petition. The said petition was dismissed as having abated. The tenant filed written statement in both the petitions more or less on similar lines. He denied the ownership of the property in suit. He denied the factum and validity of the will of Navrattan Kumar by virtue of which the landlady claimed to be the owner of the property in suit. Further he contended that no probate or letters of administration with respect to the alleged Will had been obtained, therefore, the petition was not maintainable. The tenant stated that the premises had been let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose. Therefore, the petition under section 14(1)(e) was not maintainable. The tenant also took a plea that in view of the earlier eviction petition filed by Navrattan Kumar having been missed, the present petition was not maintainable as it had become barred by principles of resjudicata. It,was also pleaded that the landlady had filed another eviction petition on the ground of misuser of the suit property by the petitioner tenant At that timp the; case of bona fide need was not. set up. In view of this the petition for bona fide need was barred.