L.A. JAI SINGHANI Vs. RAJ PAL KAKKAR
LAWS(DLH)-1983-2-34
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 24,1983

L.A. Jai Singhani Appellant
VERSUS
Raj Pal Kakkar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

GOSWAMY, J. - (1.)- This revision petition under Section 25-B(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is directed against the order dated 18 March, 1980 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the petition of the respondent-landlords under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the said Act was allowed and the petitioner-tenant was given six months' time to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute.
(2.)THE respondents are the joint owners of Property No. 43-J, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi. They filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The grounds for eviction are stated in paragraph 18(a) of the petition which is as follows :-
"18(a) The premises, let for residential purposes, are required bonafide by the petitioners for occupation as a residence for themselves and for the members of their families, dependent on them and that the petitioners have no other suitable residential accommodation. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 are the owners of the house. Shri Raj Pal Kakkar, the petitioner is living in a rented house. He wants to live in his own house with his family, as he cannot afford to pay heavy rent of the rented accommodation. There is great hardship to this petitioner for the education of his children. The petitioner Sat Pal Kakkar wants to keep his family and his children in the premises, in suit, so that his children can get regular and continuous education at a fixed place. The petitioner Sat Pal Kakkar, oftenly, moves from one place to another and therefore, he cannot arrange education of his children at his posting station. After the death of Smt. Bhagwanti, the landlady of the premises on 29.11.1975, the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 became the owners and landlords qua, the respondent No. 1. The petitioners and the respondent No. 2 are the legal heirs of Smt. Bhagwanti. The respondent No. 2, is the co-owner of the property. He is impleaded as a respondent as he is out of station."

The petition was contested by the petitioner-tenant and his application for leave to defend was allowed. In his written statement, he pleaded that after the death of Smt. Bhagwanti, the mother of the respondents, many persons had visited the premises for purchasing the same and the respondent had also approached during the pendency of these proceedings and told him of their desire to sell the house. Besides this, the petitioner also took the objection that there was no valid and legal notice. He also pleaded that the need of the respondents was not bonafide and they did not require the premises in dispute for their residence. No dispute regarding the ownership of the property can be raised before me as the same is concluded by finding of fact which is based on evidence. The only dispute is regarding the bonafide requirement of the respondents.

(3.)IN support of their case, the petitioners Shri S.S. Kakkar and Shri R.P. Kakkar have appeared as their own witnesses as A.W.1 and A.W.2. They have also examined one Shri Gurjar Singh, as A.W.3. According to the statements of A.Ws., Shri R.P. Kakkar had retired from Government service and was getting a pension of about Rs. 700/-. He and his family were residing in a tenanted house and were paying a rent of Rs. 450/- per month. It was stated that with such meagre income, it was not possible for Shri R.P.Kakkar to pay a heavy rent of Rs. 450/- per month and thus, he wanted to shift to his own house which was fetching muchless rent. It is also in evidence that the premises are required for the residence of the children of Shri S.P. Kakkar, petitioner. According to the evidence, at the time when the evidence was recorded. Shri S.P. Kakkar was posted in Simla in Western Command. His children were also studying in Simla. It was stated that since Shri S.P. Kakkar is on transferable job and he wants his children to settle in Delhi for the purposes of their education. It is not necessary to discuss the evidence of A.W. 3 as the same relates to only the will which is not in dispute before me.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.