RATTAN LAL Vs. RAMESH CHAND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, against the eviction order dated March 3, 1984 passed by Shri S. M. Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, under clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) The petitioner is the tenant in a room and a tin shed shown red in the plan filed alongwith the petition at the monthly rent of Rs. 13 per month in house No. 2841, Gali Rajputana, Subzimandi, Delhi. The case set up by the respondent was that he at present is residing with his wife and five children in house No. 65, Majlis Park, Azadpur, which is owned by his wife but the said house is not suitable for him and for his family members inasmuch as the house is located in the unauthorised colony which lacks facility of proper sewerage and roads. Moreover his business premises are located near the house in question and it would be more convenient for him to live in the house in dispute. It was also pleaded by him that it takes about an hour for him to reach the business premises from his present residence and his children also feel difficulty in going to their schools as during the rainy season a lot of water accumulates around the house.

(3.) The petitioner contested the petition pleading that he alone is not the tenant in the premises in question and in fact the premises stood let out earlier to one Hub Lal Singh, father-in-law of the petitioner and on death of Hub Lal Singh about 18 years ago the tenancy rights were inherited by his son, namely, Bishamber Dass and also by the petitioner's wife. He also took the plea that the respondent is not the sole owner/landlord of the premises in question and without joining the other co-owners the eviction petition was not maintainable. The letting purpose of the premises was disputed by the petitioner asserting that the premises were let out to him for commercial purpose as well. He also pleaded that the respondent is having reasonably suitable accommodation and has no bonafide need for the premises in question inasmuch as the respondent is having one room ' which he got vacated from Mohan Lal, tenant in the house in question and has also two rooms more in the house in question. He also took the plea that the respondent had filed an eviction case against Ram Saran Dass on the ground of bonafide requirement but during the pendency of that case Ram Saran Dass had died and the respondent accepted the legal heirs of Ram Saran Dass as tenants and did not pursue the eviction case. So, it was asserted by the petitioner that in case the respondent had any bonafide need to shift to the house in question, the respondent would not have compromised the matter with the legal heirs of Ram Saran Dass. Thus, be pleaded that the real motive in filing the eviction petition against him is to put pressure on him to increase the rent. It is admitted by the petitioner in his statement that he has been paying rent to the respondent since the death of respondent's mother Smt. Subhadara Devi and he had attorned to respondent as he was told that there had taken place oral partition of the property amongst the respondent and his brothers and sisters and the house in question has fallen to the share of the respondent.