BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. JANAK RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the judgment dated October 18, 1997 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, allowing the petition of the respondent for eviction under Section 14D read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act').

(2.) The tenancy premises comprises of one room and kitchen which is part of property No. 1V-C/21, Old Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner is a tenant in the premises since 1969. The husband of the respondent expired on November 17, 1994 and the petition for eviction was, therefore, filed under Section 14D of the Act on the ground of bona fide requirement. The respondent does not possess any other residential accommodation except the suit premises where she is living with her elder son Vijay Kapoor whose family consists of his wife and three growing children. The accommodation in their possession comprises of only one room and a kitchen. The petitioner filed his Leave to Defend application and raised various pleas and contended that the matter raises triable issues. The premises were let out for commercial purposes by previous landlord Jai Raj Nath and were being used for such purpose with his consent and knowledge. The said Jai Raj Nath had filed eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act in the year 1980 where similar plea was taken by the respondent. The premises were purchased by the respondent vide Sale Deed dated December 14, 1991. Therefore, it is contended that the respondent having acquired the property by transfer could not bring suit for eviction prior to the expiry of period of five years as contemplated in the provisions of Section 14(6) of the Act. This plea is elaborately taken and discussed in paragraph 3 of the judgment which reads as follows:

(3.) The learned Additional Rent Controller over-ruled the objections of the petitioner and held that the respondent became a widow subsequent to purchase of property and during the life time of her husband the petitioner attorned tenancy in her favour. The provisions of Section 14D of the Act were applicable as the respondent was in dire need of accommodation for herself and members of the family dependent upon her. The plea that the respondent did not have the valid title on the ground that the alleged sale deed executed in her favour was null and void was repelled. Similarly, the plea that the property was let out for commercial purposes was also turned down.