M MOHAN Vs. MAHESHWARI SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 4/7/1985 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act against the petitioner.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that on 8/7/1981 Smt. Maheshwari Seth, respondent filed a petition for eviction of her tenant M/s. M. Mohan & Co. through the sole proprietor Shri M. Mohan, petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. She alleged that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant on 15/1/1975 at Rs. 500.00 per month besides electricity and water charges in two bed rooms, kitchen, W.C. and courtyard of her property at A-2/1 Vasant Vihar.New Delhi in terms of a ed of lease dated th 15/1/1975 executed between the parties, the premises were let for residential purposes and were required bonafide for occupation as a residence for herself and members of her family dependent upon her ; she was the owner thereof and she had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. She alleged that her husband died on 4/7/1972 who was a Government servant and thereafter her daughter Meena was given an appointment on compassionate grounds by the Government, who was also allotted accommodation of two rooms and the entire family started residing with her; on 15/4/1976 her daughter Meena was married and therefore other members of the family moved out to a rented accommodation in R.K. Puram ; she and her two sons then arranged accommodation in D.D.A. flats, Munirka and Kalkaji where they lived for sometime and thereafter they started livingatG-13,Narouji Nagar, New Delhi, her .family consisted of herself, her two sons and one daughter.

(3.) The petitioner in his written statement pleaded that the premises in suit were let for all purposes i.e. residential-cum-commercial purposes as no purpose was specified in the lease deed and orally it was agreed that the premises were let for residential-cum-godown/office purposes ; sufficient accommodation was available to the respondent on various occasions but she let out the same on enhanced rent ; the ground floor premises were lastly vacant in 1979 and 1980 but the same were re-let to Jai Parkash Associates at enhanced rate ; she was not in need of any additional accommodation ; the eviction petition was malafide. The allegations were controverted in her replication by the respondent.