THOMAS GERVASE & ANR Vs. RAVIN MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is against an order dated 01.05.2018 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge-Rent Controller, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (the learned Trial Court) in RC No.50/2017 titled as Ravin Mehra vs Thomas Gervase & Another.

(2.) The respondent herein claiming to be an owner of the premises had instituted the petition for eviction on account of bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) in respect of MIG DDA Flat No.379, Ground Floor, Pocket R(U), Pitampura, Delhi - 110034 (subject property) on the following grounds:- That the Petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No.DDA Flat No. 379, Ground Floor, Pocket R(U), MIG, Pitam Pura Delhi-ll0034 and the same was let-out by the father of the petitioner jointly to the respondents for residential purpose at monthly rent of Rs1,000/- per month. No rent agreement was written between the parties Subsequently the rent was increased from time to time and the last rent @ Rs 2500/- , was paid by the respondent.

(3.) The petitioners did not file any leave to defend application, but rather filed a reply to the eviction petition wherein the petitioners rather allege themselves to be absolute owners of the subject property. It was alleged they have purchased the subject property from the father of the respondent for an amount of Rs.4.00 Lac, but since they were having only Rs.2.35 Lac at the relevant time so they paid the same and got executed a set of GPA, Affidavit, Receipt etc dated 24.02.1999 and 24.12.1999 from the father of respondent and promised to pay him the balance amount, but could not pay the same; but now are inclined to clear the same. It is alleged they had also paid Rs.30,000/- to the respondent after the death of his father and had further promised to pay full and final consideration amount only on the execution of final sale deed of the property. However, they have admitted the suit property was given to them, initially, on rent by the father of the respondent, but later they allegedly purchased in the manner stated above.