SHASHIKANT DIXIT Vs. RENUKA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/ landlord Hereinafter 'landlord' filed an eviction petition being RC ARC 57/2018 entitled 'Shashikant Dixit vs. Renuka Sharma' under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Hereinafter 'DRC Act' against the respondent/ tenant Hereinafter 'tenant' seeking eviction of the property bearing Flat no.313, DDA Tower No. 1, Mount Kailash, East of Kailash, New Delhi Hereinafter 'subject premises', before the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Hereinafter 'learned RC'.

(2.) Briefly put, it was the case of the landlord therein that the respondent was inducted as a tenant by the erstwhile owner and that the landlord became the owner of the subject premises by virtue of the registered Agreement to Sell and Purchase, General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney, Will and Possession Letter, all dtd. 13/8/1999 Hereinafter 'possessory documents' executed in his favour by the erstwhile owner for a sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000.00. As the landlord with his wife were residing with his own brother and his family, it was causing acute inconvenience to both families due to the growing needs of their respective households, moreover, since the son of the landlord's brother also get married on 23/11/2016, his brother has requested to vacate the said premises. Hence, there was a bona fide requirement by the landlord for residential purpose of his family members as there were no other suitable alternative accommodation available with them for the same.

(3.) Upon service, the tenant filed her application seeking leave to defend. It was her case that she was neither a tenant of the landlord nor he was the owner-landlord of the subject premises as she had entered into an Agreement to Sell dtd. 1/6/1996 with the erstwhile owner qua the subject premises. Although, she had paid the sale consideration, however, the landlord in collusion with the erstwhile owner, subsequently executed fraudulent documents purporting to transfer the subject premises in favour of the landlord. Even though a Suit for Specific Performance being CS DJ No.609557/16 Hereinafter 'Suit' instituted by her against them was dismissed vide order dtd. 31/8/2018, however, an appeal being RFA 213/2019 Hereinafter 'Appeal entitled 'Renuka Sharma vs. Surinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.' is already pending before this Court. Therefore, the issue of ownership of the subject premises is yet to attain finality. Lastly, it was stated that the landlord had other alternative accommodation available with him and the need projected by the landlord was not genuine or bona fide.