TULSI RAM Vs. RAM KISHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18th November, 1999 of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing his application for leave to defend and contest the eviction petition filed by the respondents under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

(2.) The respondents filed the eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of petitioner on the ground that the respondents bona fide require the premises in dispute for their residence. The respondents contended that Smt. Rama Devi, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 6 and respondent No.7, Smt. Shakuntala Devi had earlier filed another eviction petition being E- 220/95 against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act. During the pendency of earlier eviction petition filed by Smt. Rama Devi, she expired on 18th March, 1996 and her legal heirs, respondents Nos.1 to 6 did not file the application for substitution as the legal representatives in the eviction petition and consequently the petition abated and the petition was, thereafter, withdrawn on 29th January, 1997. The order passed while withdrawing the eviction petition on 29th January, 1997 is as under:-

(3.) The respondents Nos.1 to 6 contended that after the demise of Late Smt.Rama Devi they had become the co-owners along with respondents No.7. The eviction petition was filed by the respondents contending that respondent No.1 is an aged man and he requires one room and one kitchen for himself and for his married daughter Mrs. Suman, who usually comes and stays with the respondent No.1. The requirement of three rooms, one kitchen and one store was pleaded for respondent No.2, his wife and his two sons namely Navin aged 23 years and Anil aged 22 years and two daughters namely Ms.Anita and Savita alleged to be of marriageable age whose marriage had not been possible on account of paucity of accommodation. The requirement of respondent No.3 pleaded was of three rooms for himself, his wife and his three sons namely Sunil 21 years, Praveen 23 years and Nitin 18 years and one daughter Babita aged 24 years. Respondent No.3 pleaded that all the children are of marriageable age and they require premises urgently. The requirement of respondent No.4 Laxmi Narain was pleaded for three rooms, one kitchen for himself, his wife, two sons namely Amit 20 years and Nitesh 18 years and one married daughter who comes and usually resides with respondents No.4. The requirement of respondent No.5 Mahender Kumar was pleaded for two rooms and a kitchen for two daughters namely Neha and Kumari Sonal and one son namely Chintu aged 4 years. The requirement of respondent No.6 was pleaded for two rooms and one kitchen for himself, his wife and one son namely Vikalp and one daughter namely Kumari Khushboo. Two rooms were pleaded for respondent No.7 for herself and her husband and two more rooms for respondent No.7's married son namely Satish Kumar and his one son namely Tapan.