SUDESH JAIN Vs. PARKASH CHAND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been brought by the landlady challenging the order dated May 26, 1984, of Shri A.K. Garg, Additional Rent Controller, by which he had dismissed the eviction petition brought by the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence of the petitioner and her family members covered by clause (e) ofsub-section(l) of Section 14 of the Act.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner only and have perused. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent at the time of final hearing of the petition.

(3.) House No. 2714: Chowk Raiji, Gali Pahar Wali, Delhi-6 is stated to have been owned by one Manovati Devi, mother-in-law of the petitioner. This house had been sold by Manovati to the petitioner and her two sisters-in-law, namely, Smt. Brijbala and Smt. Parkashvati. All these three vendees are married to the sons of Manovati. Sale deed of the said house is Ex. AW1/1. It is the case of the petitioner that an oral partition of the said property had taken place amongst the three co-owners and a declaratory decree recognising the said partition had been obtained and the copy of the decree is Ex. AW1/2 and the certified copy of the map showing the different portions falling to the share of each of the three owners has been also proved as Ex. AWI/3. Out of the portion which has fallen to the share of the petitioner, one room on the first floor admittedly is in the possession of the petitioner while Parkash Chand respondent was inducted as a tenant in one room and one kitchen on the first floor shown in red colour in the plan Ex. AW1/8 which has also fallen to the share of the petitioner and Parkash Chand was inducted as a tenant at the rental of Rs. 60.00 per mensem in the year 1973 and it is alleged that the premises had been let out to him for residential purposes only. Another one room and kitchen again located on the first floor in the tenancy of Suresh Chand also had fallen to the share of the petitioner. The petitioner had filed two eviction petitions one against Prakash Chand and the other against Suresh Chand on the similar ground of bonafide requirement of the petitioner and her family members. Both these petitions bad been dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller and the revisions are being decided by me against the said two orders of the Additional Rent Controller today.