PANNA LAL KANOJIA Vs. RAJINDER SINGH SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.17797/2006 Allowed subject to just exceptions. CM(M) No.2191/2006 and CM No.17798/2006 An eviction petition was filed by respondent no.1 against respondent no.2 and the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (a), (b), (d) and (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as the 'said Act') in respect of two rooms and a kitchen of property no. A-82 forming part of the Municipal No 759, Sukhdev Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003. The premises were stated to have been let out to respondent no.2 at a monthly rent of Rs 41 excluding electricity and water charges. The purpose of letting was stated to be residential. Respondent no.2 was alleged not to have paid or tendered arrears of rent despite service of notice. The premises were also stated to have been sublet or assigned or parted with possession to the petitioner herein without the consent and knowledge of respondent no.1 while respondent no.2 was alleged to have shifted to another premises at 1642, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Respondent no.2 and his family were stated not to be residing in the tenanted premises for more than a year and respondent no.2 even acquired a ration card at the new address. Respondent no.1 also placed reliance on a compromise decree passed by this Court on 20.08.1991 to claim that he was the owner/landlord of the premises which had fallen to his share.

(2.) The eviction petition was resisted both by the petitioner and respondent no.2 who filed a common written statement stating that they were brothers and had been residing in the suit premises. Respondent no.2 was stated to be the head of the family and thus rent receipts were issued in his name. Both the petitioner and respondent no.2 claimed to be joint tenants in the suit premises since 1950 and had been paying rent regularly. It is alleged that respondent no.1 refused to issue the rent receipts and thus the rent was sent through a money order which was also refused. The remaining allegations were denied in respect of subletting. The petitioner is stated to have got married in the tenanted premises and it was not disputed that the petitioner is in legal and physical control of the entire tenanted premises.

(3.) The parties led their evidence. The Additional Rent Controller ('ARC' for short) found that the service of notice had been proved as though the envelope was returned, it was sent at the correct address. The rents were in arrears and thus the case was made out under Section 14(1)(a) of the said Act for eviction on grounds of non payment of rent as per the order dated 13.10.2004 of the ARC.