CHETAN LAL JAIN Vs. MANOHAR LAL VOHRA
LAWS(DLH)-1983-9-35
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on September 06,1983

CHETAN LAL JAIN Appellant
VERSUS
MANOHAR LAL VOHRA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

JEEWAN MEHROTRA VS. SALAWANTI KOTWANI [LAWS(DLH)-1993-5-83] [DISTINGUISHED]
SELECTED MARBLE HOME VS. ARUN KUMAR KAMAL KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-120] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

J.D.Jain, J. - (1.)This revision petition is directed against order of eviction passed by an Additional Rent Controller on 25th October, 1980 against the petitioner on the ground under clause (e) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.)The facts giving rise to this revision petition succinctly are that on 18th December 1979, the respondent-landlord (for short the landlord moved an application under clause (e) of proviso to Section 14(1) read with Section 25-B of the Act for eviction of the petitioner (for short the tenant) from the demised premises comprised in house No. 123 (old No 122/11), Shankar Nagar, a trans-Yamuna colony. It was averred that the demised premises had been let to the tenant for residential purpose and were required by the landlord who was owner thereof for occupation as residence for himself and the members of his family dependent upon him and that the landlord had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation with him. He explained that accommodation in his possession comprised three rooms and one store- cum-room but the same was absolutely inadequate and insufficient having re- gard to the number of his family members. According to him, his family consists of himself, his wife, two sons one daughter-in-law and one grand child. It was further stated that his second son Girdhar Lal Vohra had since been engaged and his marriage was going to be solemnised on 5th February 1980. Further the landlord has four married daughters and they keep on visiting him off and on alongwith their spouses and childern and as such he requires some accommodation for their temporary sojourn with him.
(3.)On being served with summons in the specified form, the tenant moved an application for leave to appear and defend within the prescribed period of 15 days. He also filed an-affidavit in support of his prayer for leave to defend stating the grounds on which he sought to contest the application for eviction. He asserted that the eviction petition had been made malafide in as much as the landlord had sufficient accommodation with him, viz..four rooms and one kitchen which were quite sufficient for him and members of his family comprising only the landlord, his wife and two sons and the wife of his elder son Ramesh Chander Vohra. However,he denied that Ramesh Chander Vohra had any issue as alleged. He .explained that Ramesh Chander Vohra was living in the premises which had been vacated by another tenant Shri Vachaspati Sharma about a year ago. However, he denied that the younger son of the landlord had been engaged and as such was going to bemarried. Further, while admitting that the landlord had four married daughters, two of whom were living in Delhi itself, one was in Punjab and the fourth was at Kanpur, he asserted that they were not visiting her parents off and on, as alleged. He further averred that the eviction petition was not maintainable because besides one room one store and a kitchen, his tenancy comprised one independent latrine and open space (chabutra) in front of the said room and as such it was for partial eviction only. Lastly, he urged that the application for eviction was malafide as the landlord wanted to convert the premises in question into shops on account of their location on the main road. The land lord refuted all these allegations and reaffirmed the grounds contained in the eviction petition by way of counter-affidavit.
;


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