GHANSHYAM DASS Vs. RAJENDER KUMAR KALRA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - CAVEAT No. 897/2016 Since the counsel for the respondent has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged. CM No. 38030-31/2016 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RC.REV. 495/2016 and CM No. 38029/2016 (stay) The present petition is filed under Sec. 25 B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking to impugn the order of eviction passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 13.07.2016 against the petitioner and dismissing the application for leave to defend.

(2.) The respondents No. 1 and 2 filed the present eviction petition under Sec. 14(1) (e) read with Sec. 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC). It is the case of respondents No. 1 and 2 (landlord) that the property bearing No. 18/1(new Municipal Number) (Old No. 948/2, Ward No. 1), Mehrauli New Delhi was originally purchased by the father of respondents No. 1 and 2, namely, late Sh. Ram Dayal. Late Sh. Ram Dayal sold the vertical half portion of the property and remained the owner of the balance portion. It is the case of respondents No. 1 and 2 that respondent No. 3- Mehrauli Dehat Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. was the tenant of the tenanted premises and that one Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma, the Managing Director of respondent No. 3 was using the tenanted premises. Respondent No. 3 is said to have acknowledged late Sh. Ram Dayal to be the owner/landlord and was paying rent @ Rs.9.00 per month which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 15.00 per month. It is stated that Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma expired on 11.04.1990 and thereafter, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 continued to occupy one room. Reliance was placed on the original rent receipts bearing the signatures of the petitioner.

(3.) Sh. Ram Dayal expired on 05.12.2004 leaving behind a registered Will dated 04.12.2001 whereby he bequeathed the said property in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2. As per respondents No. 1 and 2, the tenancy comprises two rooms on the front side of the ground floor with open court yard/porch as described in the site plan. The petitioner is occupying one room of tenanted premises and the other room of the tenanted premises is in occupancy of respondent No. 4 but the same has always remained locked.