RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. LEELA WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has assailed an order dated 3rd February, 2007 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller whereby a petition under Section 14 (l) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act filed by the landlord was allowed and an application under Section 25-B of DRC Act seeking leave to defend made by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this petition are that the landlady, a widow had purchased the suit property from previous owner smt. Bhagwati Devi by virtue of documents namely agreement to sell, power of attorney, receipt, affidavit and a registered 'will'. Smt. Bhagwati Devi died on 29. 11. 1996. The premises was under tenancy of late Sh. Mangi Lai sharma and the petitioners are LRs of late Sh. Mangi Lai Sharma who are residing in the premises. The landlady claimed that she was in possession of one room, kitchen, open jal, courtyard on second floor and WC on third floor of the property in dispute. Her family consisted of nine daughters and one son. Out of nine daughters, seven were married. Two unmarried daughters and one son were living with her. One unmarried daughter was studying in M. Com 2nd year, second daughter was studying in BCA final year and her son Mohit was aged 16 years and a student of 11th class. The accommodation in her possession namely one room, kitchen on second floor and WC on third floor was highly insufficient for herself and her family members dependent on her. She required one room for herself, one drawing-cum-diningroom, three separate rooms for her two adult daughters and one son, one pooja room and two study rooms and one guest room for visiting daughters and other relatives. The premises in occupation of tenant namely one room, kitchen on second floor, one tin shed and open terrace in front of tin shed and one small kolki and latrine on third floor in property bearing No. 5269, Gali Bharat Nagar, Paharganj was bonafidely needed by her.

(3.) IN leave to defend, the tenant had disputed the title of the petitioner and also disputed relationship of landlord and tenant, letting purpose and the bonafide need of the landlady. It was also stated that all LRs of late Sh. Mangi Lai Sharma, who died on 22. 12. 2003, were necessary parties and since all LRs were not made party to the petition, the petition was bad in law. It was also submitted that the landlady was having another premises namely 5261, Gali Bharat Nagar, Shora Kothi, Paharganj where she was residing with her one son and two daughters. The premises Nos. 5261 and 5269 were just adjoining each other and the landlady had joined the two premises by removing the wall in between. She has in her possession eight rooms, two stores, two bath rooms, two WCs and dalan inclusive of portion at second floor which was also owned by the landlady. The tenants disputed the extent of premises in their own possession and stated that actual premises in possession of tenants consisted of two rooms, one store, one kitchen on second floor and two rooms, one kolki and one bath-cum-WC on third floor. The tenant contended that it had raised triable issues for grant of leave to defend and it was submitted that since landlady was asking for additional accommodation, the petitioner was entitled to leave to defend.