KIRPA RAM Vs. CHAMPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition for eviction filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises in question was dismissed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. Aggrieved therefrom the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

(2.) IT has been strenuously argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the learned Additional Rent Controller that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes are liable to be set aside. According to the learned counsel the premises were let out only for residential purposes. Reliance has been placed on judgment inter se parties, dated 23rd July, 1980, of Shri S.P. Sabharwal, Additional District Judges, Delhi. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that alongwith the application dated 3rd October, 1983 a certified copy of the aforesaid judgment had been placed on record but no orders were passed by the Additional Rent Controller disposing of the said application. It is true that such an application was filed and reply thereto was also filed by the respondent. It appears that no order were passed on the said application. However, even if the aforesaid judgment is considered to be an evidence in the case then too the case of the petitioner-landlord does not substantially improve. There is no finding in the judgment of Additional District Judge that the letting purpose was residential. In fact, there is no finding on the question of letting purpose at all in the said judgment. Even otherwise the said judgment in my view cannot operate as res judicata as the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, and therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent tenant to challenge the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge.

(3.) ON the question of the bonafide requirement of the petitioner the learned Additional Rent Controller, in my opinion, rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner-landlord had been inducting tenants from time to time in different portions of the property and hence he had not established his bonafide requirement of the premises in question. It may be pointed out that in the written statement the respondent had given the names of five different persons to whom, according to the respondent, the petitioner had let out different portions and the approximate time when such letting took place was also mentioned in the written statement. The petitioner chose to file replication. However, in the application an evasive reply was given. With regard to two tenants it was stated that they had been let out the premises long back but when were they let out was not specified. With regard to other three tenants there was only general denial. In view of these pleadings, in my opinion, the learned Additional Rent Controller rightly marshelled the evidence and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been letting out various portions of the property to different tenants and bonafide requirement had not been established.