SHADI LAL KAPOOR Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under S. 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the petitioner-Shadi Lal Kapoor (landlord) seeking the revision of an order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated l2th July 1985 dismissing the eviction petition of the respondent under S. 14(l)(e) of the Act from premises bearing No. C-4/102, Safdarjung Development Scheme, New Delhi.

(2.) It was alleged by the petitioner in the eviction petition that the premises in question were let out under S. 21 of the Act to M/s. Himachal Shoddy Mills Limited for the residence of Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta who claimed to be the Director of the said Company on or about 20th April 1973 for a period of two years at a rent of Rs. 1600.00 per month for purely residential purposes. After the expiry of the term of the lease, the respondent requested the petitioner to give him six months time to vacate the premises as he was building his own house. The petitioner acceded to his request and allowed him to stay beyond the period of lease, however the respondent did not vacate the premises even during the extended period and, therefore, the petitioner was compelled to file the petition under S. 14(l)(e) read with S. 25-B(8) of the Act. It was averred in the petition that at the time of letting, the family of the petitioner consisted of himself, his wife, one married daughter, two unmarried daughters aged 25 years and 21 years and one son aged 17 years and the children had since grown up and the daughters were 28 years and 26 (24?) years and the son about 20 years and they needed independent rooms and the accommodation in their possession was not sufficient. It was further averred that the petitioner and his family members were residing in a portion of a property belonging to the H.U.F./joint family bearing No. 19, Link Road, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi which consists of two bed rooms and one small drawing-cum-dining room which was inadequate for the petitioner and his family members. Moreover, due to the bickering between the joint family, it was not possible to live in the said property and, therefore, he needed the premises in possession of the respondent for the bona fide need of himself and his family members.

(3.) The respondent sought leave to defend which was allowed. Apart from denying the ownership of the petitioner and the letting purpose, the respondent denied the bona fide requirements of the petitioner and his family members dependant upon him. The respondent alleged in the written statement that the petitioner was in occupation of a multi-storeyed building consisting of ground. floor, first floor and second floor which had about 10 living rooms on the ground floor, two servant quarters and two office rooms at 19 Link Road, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. That accommodation was sufficient for the need of the petitioner and his dependant family members which consisted of his wife, one unmarried daughter and one son. It was alleged that though the petitioner also had two married daughters, one was settled in a foreign country who had surrendered her Indian citizenship and the second daughter was not on visiting terms with the petitioner. The averment of the petitioner that property No. 19 Link Road. Jangpura Extension, New Delhi belongs to H.U.F. was also denied.