SUDERSHAN DUTTA Vs. KRISHAN NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Krishan Narain and others sought eviction of two rooms, one verandah, kitchen, bath room and latrine on the first floor of premises bearing flat No. 2, House No. 6079, Block UB-39, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi in occupation of the tenant petitioner herein. The petition was filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. Leave to contest by the petitioner was rejected by the Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) thereby holding that no triable issue had been raised by this petitioner. That the need of this respondent/landlord and bonafide. Aggrieved by this order present revision has been preferred.

(2.) To appreciate the challenge we may have quick glance to the brief facts of the case. The respondent No. 1 and husband of respondent No. 2 were the sons of Shri Sri Narain owner of the premises in question. After his death, respondent No. 1 and the husband of respondent No. 2 alongwith their sisters inherited this property. Sisters of the respondents relinquished their right in favour of the respondent No. 1 and husband of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 with his wife has been residing in two-rooms set on the first floor of the premises in question. He is issueless. Respondent No. 2 with her husband and three married sons had been in occupation of three-room set on the first floor. Three-room set on the first floor is in occupation of respondent No. 2's married sons. Since the family was growing and they needed more accommodation, therefore, sought additional accommodation. The question of the respondents being the owner landlord of the premises was not in dispute. The purpose of letting was admitted to be residential. So far as number of family members and the accommodation in their occupation was also not in dispute. The fact that sons of respondent No. 2 namely respondents 3,4 and 5 have been living in the premises in question alongwith respondent No. 2 and also when their father Shri Basant Narain was alive was also not in dispute.

(3.) In view of the admitted position, the only point for consideration is whether on account of the extra accommodation needed by the respondent, petitioner raised any triable issue.