MUSSADI LAL Vs. PHOOLWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. The Additional Rent Controller passed an eviction order under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The said order was passed on 4th day of June, 1994. Since then the matter has been pending in this Court.

(2.) Mr. Andley, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the eviction petition the respondent has shown that he was having only two rooms on the ground floor. However, the Local Commissioner who was appointed at the request of the respondent reported that there were three portions of the properly in question and the respondent had twelve room, one shop and one factory which was sufficient for his accommodation. Mr. Andley has contended that there was material concealment by the respondent with regard to the accommodation available with him.

(3.) The second argument advanced by Mr. Andley was that the testimony of Sh. Kishan Gopal ought to have been rejected outrightly by the Additional Rent Controller. On the other hand, respondent in his petition has contended that the petitioners' family consists of themselves i.e. Phoolwati-widow, her sons namely Om Prakash, Amar Pal, Anand Kumar. Petitioner No. 2-Om Prakash had his wife, three sons aged 19 years, 16 years and 14 years (in 1988 when the petition was filed), daughters aged 18 and 12 years. Petitioner No. 3 Amar Pal had his wife, daughter aged 4 years and son aged 2 years and petitioner No. 4 Anand Kumar who was then unmarried although it was mentioned that he was of marriageable age. It was further stated in the petition that accommodation available with the respondent was two rooms on the ground floor measuring 9'x 7', 14'x 11.3' and one kitchen on the ground floor and one room measuring 6.3' x 7.6' and one tin shed measuring 12'x 8' on the first floor. Additional Rent Controller had appointed a Local Commissioner. At that stage, the petitioner had not objected to the appointment of the Local Commissioner by the Additional Rent Controller. However, when the Local Commissioner filed the report the petitioner took objection to the report of the Local Commissioner. What Mr. Andley argued before me is that the Local Commissioner's report so far as it suggests that there are three portions of the property in question be accepted but the explanation of Kishan Gopal, who is stated to be in occupation of one of the portions of the said property, should be rejected.