JAGDISH KR Vs. NAUT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents filed an eviction petition against the petitioners under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, ?the said Act?) in respect of premises No. 9454, Pull Mithai Walan, Library Road, Azad Market, Delhi. The house is stated to be comprising of one room, Dalan or courtyard, kitchen, latrine and staircase as per the site-plan annexed to the petition and was stated to be let out to the petitioners at a monthly rent of Rs.10/- for residential purposes. The petitioners inherited the tenancy rights from the original tenant, Late Shri Mukandi Lal in 1987. The respondents claimed that the respondents were in requirement of the tenanted premises bona fide for the residence of their family members as they have no other suitable residential accommodation.

(2.) The respondents stated that respondents No. 3 and 4 were living in a separate house on rent along with their family members, while respondent No. 1, aged about 45 years at that time, was residing in House No. 9451, Tokriwalan, Azad Market, Delhi along with his family comprising of his wife and daughter. The daughter was married a year prior to the filing of the petition. Respondent No. 2 was at that stage aged about 30 years and living in the same house along with his wife and four children being daughters aged about 12 and 5 years and sons aged about 10 and 8 years. The accommodation available with respondents No. 1 and 2 was stated to be just three rooms, one kitchen, latrine, bathroom and a small Dalan.

(3.) On a concession by the respondents without prejudice to their rights and contentions, leave was granted to the petitioners to contest the petition. The petitioners disputed the ownership of the respondents and stated that the purpose of letting was residential-cum-commercial. The latter plea was based on the averment that the petitioners were working as coolie in the night-time and in the day-time used to engage in the business of manufacture of Dona Pattals. The respondents were also alleged to have more than sufficient accommodation in House No. 9451, which was owned and possessed by two of the respondents. The other two respondents were stated to be living in separate accommodation. It was also alleged that the respondents own two separate houses bearing Nos. 9452 and 9453 at Tokriwalan, Azad Market, Delhi and, thus, did not require the separate dwelling house, which was tenanted. One of the respondents, i.e., respondent No. 3 was alleged to own and possess property No. B?282, Nathupura, Delhi measuring 32 sq. yds. which had since been sold. The parties led evidence and the Additional Rent Controller (for short, ?ARC?) in terms of the impugned order dated 18.07.2002 held that the respondents were entitled to succeed in the eviction proceedings.