MADAN LAL GAIND Vs. RABINDER NATH CHANDHIOKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed against the order dated December 1, 1990 passed by Shri L.D.Malik, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The learned judge accepted the petition for eviction filed by the respondent under Section 14(l)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and granted six months time to vacate the demised premises to the petitioner. Respondent is the owner of the premises known as G-9B, Kalkaji, which were purchased by him from Smt. Meenu Wadhwani through her attorney Shri Ambrat L.Wadhwani vide sale deed dated October 13, 1978; that the petitioner was an old tenant and in occupation of the premises when the same was purchased by the respondent. The family of the respondent consists of himself, his wife and his son and it was alleged that they were residing in servant quarter above the garage comprising of one room, bath room, W.C. in property No. C-395, Defence Colony, New Delhi owned by his elder brother Shri S.N.Chandhiok as a licencee; the father of the respondent was residing on the ground floor of the said property whereas the elder brother was alleged to be occupying the first floor and Barsati floor. The respondent was living in the servant quarter uncomfortably and filed the petition for eviction in respect of the tenancy premises in that background. He has stated that he was an Assistant in the Ministry of Planning and has since retired in the year 1991. The petitioner filed written statement wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. It was, however, denied that the suit premises were residential. They were alleged to be let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes and were being used for the said purpose since the inception of the tenancy. According to the petitioner he is a property dealer/consultant by profession and doing his property dealer business in the property and also used the same for the purpose of his residence. He further stated that one Shri Gomi Bai was owner of the property and after her death all heirs have become owners of the property and respondent was only collecting the rent on behalf of owners and not as owner of the suit premises. The respondent denied these averments and reiterated that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in Delhi other than the suit property and he was residing in the property at C-395, Defence Colony, New Delhi as a licencee in the servant quarter and, as such, was entitled to live in his own property. The Additional Rent Controller considered the ingredients which are required to prove that (a) the respondent was owner/landlord of the suit premises (b) the premises in question were let out for residential purposes (c) the respondent required the premises bonafide for occupation as residence for himself and for members of his family dependent upon him and (d) he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation available to him.

(2.) The evidence on record was appraised by the Rent Controller as well as pleadings of the parties with regard to the ownership of the suit property. The court took into consideration the fact that the perusal of the sale deed EX.A.1 specifically showed that Smt.Goma Bai left behind her only daughter Smt. Meenu Wadhwani and made a Will in respect of property which was got probated in the name of her daughter who had already been substituted in the records of Land and Development office. In this background it was held that Smt. Meenu Wadhwani had been permitted to sell the house by L&DO and the property was, accordingly, sold to the respondent who was, therefore, held owner by virtue of the sale deed executed in this regard.

(3.) At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not seriously impugned the finding that the respondent was owner of the property. On the contrary, it was stated that the deal was brought about by the petitioner himself. This finding, therefore, does not require any interference and the same is affirmed.