JAINSONS WESTEND Vs. TARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Section 25 (B) (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short, "the DRC Act"), 1958, the petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 28th March 2008 passed by learned ARC whereby an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of the DRC Act filed by the landlord was allowed and an eviction order was passed against the petitioner qua tenanted premises bearing No. 2839, First Floor, Gali Rajputana, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 and the application of the petitioner under Section 25 (B) for leave to defend was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner in her application for leave to defend challenged the relationship of landlords and tenant, the ownership of the landlady and also disputed the bonafide requirement of the landlord and took a plea that the landlord was living in the property bearing No. 2821, Gali Rajputana, Subzi mandi, Delhi-110007, which was sufficient for her needs.

(3.) THE petitioner (tenant) is in occupation of a portion of the property no. 2839, Ist Floor, Gali Rajputana, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. The landlady, in her eviction had contended that the premises in question was initially owned by one bhagwan Das and let out by him to the original tenant. Bhagwan Dass left behind three sons viz Kashmere Lal, Balbir Singh and Raghbir Singh. After death of bhagwan Dass, all the three legal heirs thereafter entered into an oral family partition agreement qua the properties left behind by Bhagwan Dass. The landlady was the widow of Mohan Singh son of late Shri Balbir singh, one of the sons of bhagwan Dass. In this oral family partition, the property bearing No. 2837, ground floor and a part of the property bearing No. 2839 on first floor fell to her share. The other legal heirs of Bhagwan Dass relinquished their rights and executed a relinquishment deed in her favour in respect of this part of the share and she similarly relinquished her rights in favour of other LRs regarding rest of the property. She, therefore, became absolute owner of Property No. 2837 (ground floor) and a part of the property bearing No. 2839, 1st Floor. Her husband expired on 12th February 2002. First she filed a petition under Section 14-D of DRC Act after becoming a widow, but in view of the judgment of Supreme court in Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta VII 2004 SLT 615 wherein Supreme Court held that a petition under Section 14-D was maintainable only if the husband or the widow herself had let out the premises, she withdrew the petition and thereafter the instant eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement was filed wherein she alleged that she had no other premises to live. She was presently living in a portion which fell to the share of Lrs of Kashmere Lal, since the entire portion which fell to her share was in occupation of tenants. After family partition, she was to leave this portion and shift to her own share of property. Presently, she was living at the mercy of others.