TERSAM RAJ BHAU PETITIONER Vs. RAJENDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent no.1 filed an eviction petition against one Smt. Rani Bir Bala w/o Sh. Tarsem Rai Bhau under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') seeking eviction from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement. The tenanted premises is the ground floor of property bearing no. 26A, Zamrodpur, Delhi consisting of two rooms, store room, kitchen, combined latrine and bath room. Respondent no.1 claimed to be the co-owner/landlord of the suit property along with original respondents 2 to 4 (original respondents no. 3 to 5 as per amended memo of parties) in the eviction petition. The monthly rent was stated to be Rs.800/- per month exclusive of water and electricity charges and the purpose of letting was stated to be residential. The property was stated to be owned earlier by Smt. Gurcharn Kaur, mother of the petitioner, and on her demise the property was inherited by the respondent no.1 herein and original respondents no.2 to 4. In fact original respondent no.4 was stated to be living in a portion of the property being the front portion. Respondent no.1 claimed that her husband was an officer with PSCB who had been alloted government accommodation at Firozpur but he had retired on 31.08.2000 and had vacated the government accommodation on 28.02.2001. The family was stated to be residing in a private rented accommodation at Firozpur. The family consisted of respondent no.1, her husband, one son and one daughter, both of marriageable age.

(2.) The eviction petition was contested by the petitioner who filed an application for leave to defend, which was granted. Smt. Ranibir Bala, original respondent no.1, filed a written statement stating that she was not the tenant and that it was her husband (petitioner herein) who was a tenant. The tenancy was stated to be for residential cum commercial purposes. Rent was stated to be paid to original respondent no.4 and the eviction petition was alleged to have been filed on account of a steep increase in rent.

(3.) An application was filed by respondent no.1 under Section 15(1) of the said Act for payment of rent during the pendency of the petition. This application was stated to be purportedly filed under Section 15(2) of the said Act. The tenant was alleged to be in arrears of rent since 23.07.1993. A prayer was made for deposit of arrears of rent. This application was resisted on the ground that all the daughters of late Smt.Gurcharn Kaur had become the co-owner of the property and the rent was being accepted by original respondent no.4, one of the co-owners. This application was decided by the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the 'ARC') by the order dated 18.11.2004 The ARC came to the conclusion that in the present case orders would have to be passed under Section 15(4) of the said Act in view of there being more than one claimant as co-owners.