DHARAM PAL GUPTA Vs. ANAND PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have preferred this Revision Petition under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act against an order dated 22.11.1999 passed by the learned ARC whereby an eviction petition of the respondent was allowed and petitioners were directed to handover the premises under their tenancy to the respondent (hereinafter petitioners are referred as tenant and respondent as landlord) [The tenant (father of petitioners) died during the pendency of the petition and his LRs were brought on record].

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this Revision Petition are that the tenant was in possession of one room and two kothas on ground floor, let out to the father of the petitioners by the previous owner for residential purpose at premises no. 1111-1112, Gali Samosan, Farashkhana Delhi. The landlord pleaded that the premises was purchased vide a registered sale deed dated 6.5.1961 by his mother Smt. Chander Kala. Smt. Chander Kala died on 7.3.1988. Other LRs of Smt. Chander Kala i.e. her husband, one son and two daughters executed a Relinquishment Deed in favour of the landlord and he became absolute owner of the premises. No other premises was owned by the landlord. He was living with his father at House No. 260 Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar as a licensee. His father was pressing him hard to vacate the premises. Leave to defend was granted to the tenant on the question of ownership and letting purpose, since the tenant had challenged the contention of the landlord being owner of the premises and had also challenged the contention of the premises having been let out for residential purpose. The evidence of the parties was recorded and the same was also confined to these two aspects only. The tenant himself objected to cross examination of his witnesses on any other aspect.

(3.) THE Counsel for the tenant argued that after passing of eviction order and during pendency of this Revision Petition, the father of the landlord had died and the status of the landlord living in the premises with his father as a licensee had changed and now the landlord was living in that premises as a matter of right, since he inherited the property. Thus, the cause of action had evaporated and this Court should take cognizance of this subsequent event and the Eviction Petition should be dismissed. The other argument is that right from the date of filing of Eviction Petition till date, it has not been the case of the landlord that father's house was not reasonably sufficient for his residence and residence of his family members. Since, now father is no more in this world, the accommodation in possession of landlord, where he had been living, being sufficient for his family, the bonafide requirement could not be there. The tenant relied on Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor and General Traders, 1975 RCR(Rent) 486 : AIR 1975 SC 1406, Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, 1981(2) RCR(Rent) 401 : AIR 1981 SC 1711, P.V. Papanna v. K. Padmanabhaiha, 1994(1) RCR(Rent) 504 : AIR 1994 SC 1577 and Kedar Nath Agarwal v. Dhanraji Devi, 2004(2) RCR(Rent) 498 : (2004)8 SCC 76 to fortify his point that Court should take into account the subsequent events. The other point pressed during arguments of the Revision was that the letting purpose of the premises was commercial since the premises was a commercial godown and the Trial Court wrongly held that the premises was being used for residential purposes.