GHANSAR SINGH Vs. KUSUM LATA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner admittedly is a tenant in a portion described as two rooms each on the first and the second floor of the property bearing No.C-586, Gali No.12, Majlis Park, Delhi-110 033 (hereinafter referred to as "the tenanted premises"). The respondent had instituted a case for eviction (E.No.03/2011) on 06.01.2011 against him on the ground of bona fide need under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The eviction case was contested by the petitioner (the tenant) on various grounds, the prime plea being that the respondent (landlady), a widow, who does not have any children of her own, has available to her sufficient accommodation, the property in question comprising of a number of rooms, out of which two bed rooms have been in use and occupation of the landlady, the brother-in-law (devar) (Prem Kumar Sharma) and his wife (devrani) (Geeta Sharma) along with their children (two un-married daughters and one son), not being members of her family nor persons dependent on her for residential purposes. The petitioner (tenant) also took up the plea that the brother-in-law (devar) for whose residential needs the eviction was sought, himself owns property No.C-588, Gali No.12, Majlis Park, Azad Pur, Delhi and further that his wife (Geeta Sharma) also owns property bearing No.C-587, Gali No.12, Majlis Park, Azad Pur, Delhi, in addition to another property bearing No.C600, Gali No.13, Majlis Park, Azad Pur, Delhi.

(2.) The case was put to trial in which both sides led evidence. It was decided by the learned additional rent controller (ARC) by judgment dated 21.11.2014. All the grounds of contest raised by the petitioner were repelled and eviction order was consequently granted in favour of the respondent/ landlady. The petition at hand challenges the correctness, legality and propriety of the findings returned and the eviction order resultantly passed.

(3.) At the hearing, the ground raised by the petitioner primarily is that the respondent/landlady has not acted bona fide as she has concealed the crucial facts concerning property No.C-587, Gali No.12, Majlis Park, Azad Pur, Delhi. It is the argument of the petitioner/tenant that the pleadings of the respondent/landlady, in above regard have been misleading and that a false case was set up, the true fact being that Geeta Sharma (wife of the brother-in-law) for needs of whose family the eviction case is pressed, is owner and in possession of the said property in her own rights and, therefore, she not being a dependant for such purposes on the respondent/landlady, has been withheld.