INDER KUMAR KAPOOR Vs. JASWANT RAI GULATI DECD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the judgment dated 7th August, 1991 of Shri D.R.Singh, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The learned judge passed an order of eviction against the petitioner under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the tenancy premises as situated in property No. 5904, Block No.4, Dev Nagar, New Delhi. Respondent Jaswant Rai Gulati (since deceased) filed the petition for eviction against the petitioner on the averments that the premises were let out to the petitioner for the purposes of residence. He further alleged that he was owner/landlord of the premises in terms of the compromise decree passed by the court of Shri J.S.Kerey, Sub Judge 1st Class, Ferozpur, Punjab. Till 31st December, 1986 he was residing in House No.5908 Block No.4 Dev Nagar, New Delhi and in terms of compromise this property fell in the share of his brother. Therefore, the respondent had to vacate the said property so as to hand over possession before the court of Sub Judge,Ferozpur on 23rd January, 1987. Thereafter, he was left with no other alternative but to occupy the premises on rent from 1st January, 1987 and he became a tenant in respect of two rooms, one kitchen, one bath, one toilet and one covered place situated on the First floor of the property No. 5911 Block No.4, Dev Nagar, New Delhi. This property besides being rental was insufficient for the petitioner and his family which consisted of his wife, two unmarried daughters and two sons dependent upon him. Further it was pleaded that the petitioner nor any of the family members had any other residential house in Delhi and the other property bearing No. 7078 Beriwala Bagh which came to the hands of the petitioner by inheritance in terms of compromise dated 23rd January, 1987 was a non-residential property and not Fit for human habitation being factory premises. Therefore, in this background the petitioner applied for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement to settle in the demised property along with his family-

(2.) The petition was contested by the petitioner herein. It was contended that the respondent had no locus standi to File the present suit for eviction as he was neither the landlord nor owner of the suit premises. Further-more it was pleaded that the premises had been let out to the respondent by late Brij Lal Gulati who died leaving behind his sons and daughters w io arc all necessary parties to the eviction petition and hence the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. The petitioner further alleged that respondent could not File the eviction petition under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act within a period of Five years with effect from 1st January, 1987 when he allegedly became owner of the property by way of settlement between the legal heirs of late Brij Lal Gulati. Similarly, it was pleaded that the respondent was owner of another house in Beriwala Bagh, New Delhi and this property was a double storey house which could easily accommodate the petitioner and his family members. It was denied that the property at Beriwala Bagh was non residential and not Fit for human habitation.

(3.) The matter was examined at length and the parties led their respective evidence. The learned Rent Controller reiterated the provisions of Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act that the respondent-landlord, in order to succeed in his petition for eviction, was required to prove (a) that the respondent was owner/landlord of the suit premises; (b) that the suit premises were let out only for the purpose of residence; (c)that the petitioner required bonaFide the suit premises for his residence and for the residence of his family members dependent upon him (d) that the petitioner or any other family members dependent upon him did not have any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in Delhi. The learned judge examined these questions and on appreciation of evidence found that the respondent/landlord was owner of the suit premises, which were let out only for the purpose of residence of the petitioner; they were required bonafide by the respondent for his residence as well as for the residence of his family members; the respondent or any family member did not have any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in Delhi. The order of eviction, as a consequence, was passed and the petitioner was granted time for a period of six months to vacate the demised premises by order dated 7th August, 1991.