HARISH CHANDER SHARMA Vs. BIRMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Section 25b (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short, "the DRC Act") read with Section 115 of CPC, the petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 3rd July 2002 passed by learned ARC whereby he dismissed a petition of the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e), read with Section 25b of DRC act.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an eviction petition in respect of property bearing No. 309, Bara Thakur Dwara, Shahdara, Delhi which was under tenancy of mr. Om Prakash on a monthly rent of Rs. 6/- and after death of Om Prakash, his lrs were in occupation of the property. He was having six sons and two daughters, the details of which were given by the petitioner as under:-"sons: 1. Shri Shiv Shankar, wife and 4 children 2. Shri Brahm Dutt, wife and 3 children 3. Shri Sat Narain, wife and 3 children 4. Shri Anil Kant, wife and 2 children 5. Shri Pradit Kant, Wife and 2 children 6. Shri Vishnu Dutt, Wife and 3 children Daughters: 1. Smt. Gomati, married with children 2. Smt. Radha Rani, married with children.

(3.) IT is submitted by the petitioner that he was living in a part of temple. He and his family members were in great difficulty due to paucity of accommodation and he bonafidely required tenanted premises for himself and his family members. Her two married daughters also used to visit him occasionally and the felt difficulty to accommodate them in the accommodation with him in he temple. The respondent filed leave to defend application which was allowed by the trial court and the parties led evidence. The respondent tenant had raised the issue of ownership and letting purposes in the written statement, apart from denying the bona fide requirements of the petitioner. The tenant had alleged that the petitioner was not the owner and letting purpose was not purely residential but was a composite purpose. However, the learned ARC, after considering the evidence led by parties, came to conclusion that the respondent was the owner of the premises for the purpose of DRC Act and the letting purpose was also residential and not composite. The tenant failed to prove if any business was carried out from the premises. As far as bonafide requirement of the petitioner was concerned, the learned ARC held against the petitioner and in favour of the tenant.