RAJIV AGGARWAL Vs. OM PRAKASH SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners sought eviction against the respondent herein basing their claim on the fact that they purchased the tenanted property consisting of three bed rooms, kitchen, bath, balcony and open terrace i.e. the entire first floor with the facility of staircase. Tenanted property was purchased by the petitioners jointly vide registered sale deed dated 13th August, 1990. After the lapse of statutory period of five years provided under the Act the petitioners sought eviction of the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement. That the petitioner No. 1 had been residing in a rented accommodation. The petitioner No. 2 had been living in the house of his father on which he had no legal right. Both the petitioners have no other suitable alternative residential accommodation available to them in Delhi. In the tenanted premises they have got mazzenine floor consisting of one hall and one small store. Except the mazzenine floor the petitioners have no other accommodation. One hall and a store are not sufficient for the need of the petitioners. Entire ground floor under the tenancy of another tenant is being used for composite purposes. Eviction petition against the ground floor tenant has also been filed. The petitioner No. 1 has received a notice from his landlord to vacate the premises under his tenancy. Forced by circumstances, petition for eviction was filed.

(2.) Respondent, Mr. 0m Prakash sought leave to contest the petition, primarily on the ground, that he was inducted as tenant by one Shri Ashok Malhotra. He was the owner/landlord of the premises in question. That the said Mr. Ashok Malhotra neither sold the property to the present petitioners nor had any legal heirs who could transfer or sell the property to these petitioners. Transfer of the property vide sale deed dated 13th August, 1980 by one Ms. Sudershan Malhotra was illegal, invalid and not sustainable because she was not the legally wedded wife of Mr. Ashok Malhotra. Mr. Ashok Malhotra was a bachelor, lie never got married to Ms. Sudershan Malhotra. Hence the sale deed is a fraud. That the tenanted premises was let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose. Hence petition under Section 14(1 )(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) is not maintainable. There is no bonafide requirement of the petitioners. Moreover sole transaction being sham requires adjudication.

(3.) That by the impugned order, the learned Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC) granted leave to the respondent to contest the petition primarily on the ground to ascertain whether Smt. Sudershan Malhotra was the legally wedded wife of late Ashok Malhotra. Learned ARC granted leave to ascertain whether Mrs. Sudershan Malhotra had a locus standi to sell the property. Further, observed that the petitioners had sufficient accommodation, therefore, did not require the premises bonafide.