KUSUM GUPTA Vs. SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/ landlady filed an eviction petition against the respondent/tenant under Sections 14(1)(e) and 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

(2.) The said petition has been dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller vide the order dated 31.10.2005. The main dispute raised, and which formed the basis of the impugned order, is the finding arrived at that the petitioner failed to prove her ownership. The petitioner filed on record documents of Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit and Will in terms whereof she had acquired the ownership. It may be noticed that at the stage of arguments, the respondent sought to put up a plea of adverse possession which was rightly rejected by the Additional Rent Controller since the basis was a loan advanced as per a receipt mark A which was never proved. No plea of adverse possession has been taken in the pleadings.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the statement of the respondent itself as RW1. In the cross examination, the site plan was admitted. The admitted position is that the earlier owner was Sh. Ram Lal and the petitioner purchased the property from Sh. Ram Lal including the tenanted premises. This is the deposition of the respondent itself. The extent of the family of the petitioner consisting of herself, her mother, her married son and his wife was also not denied. It was also admitted that there are three married daughters of the petitioner and the petitioner has only two rooms - one on the ground floor and another on the first floor. It was also admitted that the mother of the petitioner was very old. The purpose of letting was also admitted as residential.