VEENA GOEL Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second appeal has been brought u/s 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the order of Shri V.S. Aggarwal, R.C Tribunal by which he dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 28.8.84 of Shri I.C. Tewari, A.R.C., vide which he had dismissed the petition brought by the appellant seeking possession of the premises in question in execution of the order made u/s 21 of the Act.

(2.) The facts, in brief are that after constructing a new house at E-31, Kalindi Colony, in 1973, the landlady appellant applied for permission u/s 21 of the said Act for creating a tenancy in favour of Vinod Kumar for three years mentioning that the premises are not needed by the landlady for 3 years in as much as her son was studying in Calcutta and after 3 years her son would come and reside in the said house and her daughter is also living in Veena Goel vs. Pawan Kumar Calcutta, she would also come and live in the house in question and that son of the appellant was also to be married after 3 years and the appellant does not have any other house or property in Delhi, and a loan had been taken from the L.I.C. for building the house and the same has to be paid back.

(3.) After the expiry of 3 years period for which the limited tenancy was created in pursuance to permission granted by the ARC, another petition u/s 21 of the said Act was given by the appellant through her attorney on 12.4.77 seeking permission to create limited tenancy for a period expiring 31.12.79 in favour of Pawan Kumar-respondent. The reasons given for creating this limited tenancy were the same except that any daughter of the appellant is to come and stay in the house in question. It may be mentioned that Pawan Kumar is the real brother of Vinod Kumar.