LAWS(DLH)-2006-8-273

GAYTIES MANUFACTURING COMPANY Vs. KANWALJIT SINGH

Decided On August 03, 2006
Gayties Manufacturing Company Appellant
V/S
KANWALJIT SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent -landlord filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner -tenant 10 years ago on grounds of personal requirement under the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 24 -B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The tenanted premises consist of first and the second floor of House No 5/22B, Roop Nagar, Delhi which were let out with effect from 01.10.1970 to the petitioner through its partner Mr. S.M. Kapoor (now deceased) vide lease deed dated 01.10.1970 and comprise of three bed rooms with attached bath rooms, dining room, prayer room and drawing room and two verandahs, on the first floor of the premises besides store, kitchen, pantry along with two rooms, bath, latrine and open terrace on the second floor as per site plan ExAW1/1.

(2.) THE case of the respondent was that the entire property was owned by his deceased father and after the demise of the father, the respondent and his elder brother Sh. K.K. Singh became the owner of the entire property in equal share. On 15.06.1989 an oral partition was agreed upon in terms whereof the tenanted portion along with the garage and two outhouses above the garage came to the exclusive share of the respondent while the entire ground floor portion along with open lawn on the ground floor and another garage came to the exclusive share of Sh. K.K. Singh. It may be noticed that Sh. K.K. Singh is gainfully employed in the United States of America. The respondent at the moment is occupying the ground floor portion owned by Sh. K.K. Singh.

(3.) THE petition was contested by the petitioner Sh. Ravi Kapoor who has stated that the purpose of letting was residential -cum -commercial. All the necessary parties had not been impleaded including widow of late Sh. S.M. Kapoor and the daughters who had also become tenants by operation of law. The bona fide requirement and the ownership of the respondent is disputed.