MAHINDER KAUR Vs. HARBHAJAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition at hand challenges the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller on 18.05.1999 on the file of eviction case (E-88/1994) instituted by the respondent herein, invoking Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in respect of the premises described as ground floor, front side of property bearing No. J-12/9, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi comprising of two bed rooms, one drawing-cum-dining, front balcony, court yard, kitchen, verandah, latrine and bathroom as specifically shown in the site plan in red (PW1/3). It is not in dispute that the respondent is the landlady-cumowner of the subject property. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been a tenant in the said premises, paying rent through the attorney of the landlady.

(2.) The eviction petition was instituted on 18.03.1994 by the respondent through her father Kabul Singh, describing him as her general attorney. Admittedly, as per the pleadings set out in the eviction petition, the landlady has been a resident of United Kingdom, her family comprising of her husband and children being well-settled there. The ground on which eviction was sought was that the landlady wanted to settle down in India as she was no more interested in living in the United Kingdom since she desired to stay in Delhi with her entire family.

(3.) The eviction petition was resisted by the tenant and put to trial, apparently after grant of leave to contest. In the course of the trial, the landlady appeared as her own witness (PW-1) reiterating her case set out in the petition through her father Kabul Singh. She also examined her father Kabul Singh (PW-2). After having concluded her evidence, the landlady seems to have lost interest as when the case had reached the stage of the evidence of the tenant (petitioner herein) there was no appearance on her behalf. Thus, the tenant appeared in her evidence (as RW-1) on 11.05.1999 but her evidence was not contested by any cross-examination.