DAULAT RAM Vs. BUDHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under section 25-B(8) of theDelhi Rent Control Act by the landlord is directed against the order dated28-1-1983 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby hiseviction petition was dismissed.

(2.) The respondent Budha Ram is a tenant of a portion of house No. 5017,near Khanna Talkies, Pahar Ganj, Delhi. The petitioner filed a petition under14(l)(e) lead with section 25-B of the Act, for eviction of the said tenant. Itwas alleged that the premises were let out for residential purpose and were beingused by the respondent as such. It was further alleged that the petitioner wasthe owner-landlord of the premises and the premises were required for bonafideresidential use of the petitioner and for members of the family dependent uponhim. It was also stated that the petitioner had no other suitable residentialaccommodation with him. and the premises were required bona fide by him forhis residence.

(3.) The petition was contested by the respondent. It was pleaded that thepetitioner was not the exclusive owner of the house and as such had no right toinstitute petition. It was further pleaded that the petitioner had enough acco-mmodation in his possession in the house he was residing and he bad also tworooms available in the house in question and as such the needs of the petitionerwere not bona fide. In evidence, the petitioner deposed that the members ofthe family of the petitioner were the petitioner, his wife and four children of themarried daughter of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the marrieddaughter was living with her husband but four minor children were living withthe petitioner. The story of the minor children living with the petitioner wasobviously disbelieved on the basis of the ration card and other evidence. Thefinding has not even been challenged in this revision petition. Tfie learned Addl.Rent Controller also found that there was nothing to prove that the petitionerwas the owner of the premises in dispute. He also negatived the case ofthe petitioner regarding the bona fide requirements on the ground thatthe petitioner was living in a rented house and there was no threat of evictionfrom that house and in any case, the space was available in the house in question also.