SURAJ PRAKASH Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner landlord against the judgement dated 06.05.1995, passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, dismissing the eviction petition filed on the ground of bom fide requirement of the tenanted premises. The eviction petition was filed by the petitioner on 11.2.1985. The tenanted premises in question are a room on the ground floor of house No. 112-A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi.

(2.) Petitioner's family, admittedly, comprises the petitioner himself and his wife; two married sons, viz. Rajesh Kumar and Mukesh Kumar, and their wives and children; three married daughters; and an unmarried son. Petitioner claims that accommodation available to him at the time of the filing of the petition was one room, a kitchen and a store on the ground floor of house No. 112-A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, as shown in green in the plan annexed to the eviction petition. Petitioner admits that another room, kitchen and a storwe on the first floor, marked 'ABCD'in Exhibit A /2, has been vacated by another tenantduring the pendency of the petition and is available to the petitioner. Petitioner claims the total accommodation now available is still insufficient.

(3.) Respondent/tenant had sought leave to defend the petition which was granted. Parties went to trial. Evidence was led by both the parties, who examined themselves and their witnesses. The respondent/tenant had questioned the ownership, the letting purpose as well as the bonafide need.