J K SAXENA Vs. MADAN LAL KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the judgment dated April 22, 1992 passed by Shri S.N.Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

(2.) The petitioner sought an eviction of the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') on the ground that the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner in respect of two rooms, one kitchen, one bath room, one toilet and one verandah in property bearing No. B-54, C.C.Colony, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 175.00 since 1973. The petitioner is owner of the premises in dispute let out for residential purposes and requires the same for use as a residence for himself and his family members dependent upon him and he has no other suitable residential accommodation and has since retired as Principal from Delhi Administration in October, 1988. It was further stated that petitioner is a qualified Homoeopath and after retirement has started giving free Homoeopathic medical advise to patients and he has to treat the patients at his residence. He has no separate accommodation for clinic and his family consists of himself, his wife, one son and his parents-in-law who have shifted to Delhi two years prior to the date of filing of the petition. They have no other place of residence in Delhi and are,therefore, dependent upon the petitioner for that purposes. The accommodation which is presently with the petitioner is shown in green colour in the site plan which consists of one drawing room, one other room, one kitchen, one toilet and one bath room on the ground floor and as per his requirement the accommodation is not sufficient and the petitioner needs a separate room for his son, separate drawing-cum-dining room and separate room for himself and his wife.

(3.) The respondent filed an application for leave to defend which was allowed and he as a consequence was permitted to file the written statement. In the written statement it is stated that the petitioner is not the owner of the premises in dispute and he does not require the same for his bona fide requirement and the malafide of the petitioner is apparent from the fact that the petitioner has called his mother-in-law as well as his father-in-law from Kota to Delhi only to create a false ground of eviction whereas they are permanent residents of Kota where their son and other family members are residing and they have also got their own house there.