JEEWAN KUMAR KHANNA Vs. AJUDHIA PERSHAD MURGAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against an order dated December 1 1, 1986, 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 for himself and his family members covered by Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.

(2.) . Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner's father Duni Chand had inducted Daulat Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, as a tenant in the house No. 313/31-J, plot No. 60, Block-A, Inder Lok, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi, at the rental of Rs. 43.00 per mensern in the year 1960. Duni Chand alongwith his family members was residing jointly with his brother-in- law Dewan Chand, AW3, at first in some railway, quarter allotted in the name <PG>162</PG> of Dewan Chand and thereafter in a house belonging to Dewan Chand bearing Municipal No. 10698, Andha Mughal, Sabzi Mandi. During his life time, Daulat Ram had died and Duni Chand had brought an eviction petition on .the ground of bonafide requirement for residence only against Ajudhia Pershad, one of the sons of Dadlat Ram. Daulat Ram had left behind two sons, namely, Ajudhia Pershad and Kedar Nath, widow, namely, Jamna Devi, four daughters, Smt. Vidya Wati, Smt. Kamla Wati, Smt. Pushpa Wati and Smt. Chand Rani. Duni Chand had filed the eviction petition only against Ajudhia Pershad pleading that after the death of Daulat Ram, Ajudhia Tershad alone started paying rent and other heirs of Daulat Ram did not assert their tenancy rights and had impliedly surrendered the same. So, he sought eviction of Ajudhia Pershad from the said premises on the aforesaid ground. The petition was contested by Ajudhia Pershad on the ground that the premises had not been let out for residential purpose only and that Duni Chand was in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation and that Duni Chand did not require bonafide the demised premises for occupation as residence for himself or his family members. This eviction petition was allowed initially by the Additional Rent Controller but in appeal the Rent Control Tribunal had set aside the eviction order on the ground that Ajudhia Pershad was the co-tenant and other heirs of Daulat Ram had not surrendered their tenancy rights and as the other co-tenants have not been impleaded as respondents in that eviction petition, so the eviction petition was not maintainable. However, a finding was also given that no evidence had been led by Duni Chand to prove that he is the owner of the premises in question.

(3.) . The appeal was allowed on February 16, 1972. Duni Chand thereafter filed eviction petition against all the heirs of Daulat Ram on the same ground of eviction. But that eviction petition came to be rejected for want of service of notice of eviction as required by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, in appeal the Rent Control Tribunal vide judgment dated April 15, 1975, allowed the appeal and remanded the case for redecision and a finding was given by the Tribunal that notice of termination has been proved to have been served on all the co-tenants. On the 26th June, 1986, Duni Chand expired. The petitioner alone on his application was substituted as legal representative of Duni Chand on the basis of the will set up by the petitioner. By virtue of the said will other heirs of Duni Chand, who were his widow and daughters, were excluded from the inheritance. The petitioner then got the eviction petition dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file fresh eviction petition as the petitioner wanted to take advantage of the amended Delhi Rent Control Act which provided for summary trial for eviction case on the ground of personal requirement. The Additional Rent Controller vide his order, copy of which is Ex. AW2/5 allowed the prayer subject to the petitioner depositing certain costs which were deposited vide deposit receipt Ex. AW 2/6. The petitioner then had instituted the eviction petition on October 6, 1981 on the ground of bonafide requirement. Leave to defend was granted to respondents 1 & 2, who alone appeared before the court in response to the summons while other respondents suffered ex-pane proceedings.