BIRBAL Vs. SHAMBU DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this revision petition is to the order of eviction which has been passed by the Additional Rent Controller against the petitioner-tenant.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner under section 14(l)(e)read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was alleged in the petition that the petitioner-herein was a tenant of one room, a verandah and a kitchen on the ground floor of property No. 1658 Sohan Ganj.Subzi Mandi, Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 23.00 . According to the respondent the said premises were let out for residKential purposes and were bona fide required by the resipondentas residence for himself and members of his family dependant upon him. It was further alled that the respondent-berein was the owner of the property in dispute and that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. According to the petition, the family of the respondent consisted of himself, his wife and he had a son who had been engaged but could not be married due to paucity of accommodation. The respondent was stated to have with him only one small room measuring 8.71x6'. It was also the case of the respondent that he and members of his family had no kitchen or store and. furthermore, he had three married daughters who used to meet the respondent but could not stay with them because of paucity of accommodation.

(3.) - In the written statement which is filed it was contended by the petitioner herein that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial 322 purposes. It was also the case of the petitioner-herein that the tenanted premiles consisted of one room. one courtyard, one store, one canopy, one kitchen, one chabutra, open courtyard, common bath and common latrine and as the petition had been filed for partial eviction, therefore, the said petition was liable to bedismissed. The petitioner-herein also denied the ownership of the respondent-herein and it was also contended that the respondent hid enough accommodation on the first floor of the premises in dispute and which had not been shown in the site plan.