MAHESH CHAND GUPTA Vs. SHIV SARUO GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgment dated August 24, 1995 passed by Shri H.S.Sharma, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The eviction petition of the petitioner filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner let out the premises at D-219, Defence Colony, New Delhi comprising of two bed rooms with bath rooms, study room, drawing-cum-dining room, glazed verandah and kitchen on the first floor and a servant quarter on the barsati floor by an Order dated July 22, 1978 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in a petition under Section 21 of the Act. The premises were, admittedly, let out for residential purposes. It was next next alleged that the respondent illegally and unauthorisedly took forcible possession of one room on November 1, 1987 and civil and criminal proceedings are pending inter-se between the parties. The petitioner has claimed that he does not own any alternative suitable residential accommodation. His family comprises of himself, his wife and a son who was studying in MBBS. The mother-in-law of the petitioner was suffering with number of ailments and required the help of the petitioner who is a Doctor by profession. Therefore, she kept on visiting him and also started living in the premises along with the petitioner and his family. The need of the petitioner was stated to be bona fide as he required the accommodation for purposes of his residence and the residence of the family dependent upon him as well as for clinic for which one room and lobby was being used. The petitioner's wife possessed a plot bearing No.C-217 Sarvodya Enclave, New Delhi but she bequeathed it to her son Dr.Anil Gupta. The said Anil Gupta allegedly raised construction on the plot in the year 1986 and let out the same to a company known as M/s G.G.Aviation Services Co. The entire property at 2574 Sir Syed Ahmad Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi was owned by the petitioner as Karta of the HUF and the property, admittedly, is commercial in nature.

(3.) Notice of the eviction petition was issued to the respondent and leave to contest was granted. Accordingly written statement was filed wherein it was pleaded that the petitioner had not come to the Court with clean hands and concealed material facts. The respondent was in possession of the entire first floor and second floor and eviction petition of the premises was not maintainable. The petitioner was not owner of the premises and he only wanted to increase the rent from Rs.1200.00 to Rs.6000.00 . Therefore, he had committed fraud at the time of creation of the tenancy under Section 21 of the Act. House No.C-217 in Sarvodya Enclave was available to the petitioner and the petitioner did not have any clinic in the premises in suit. The need was, therefore, not bona fide.