SHRI MAHINDER NARAIN CHOPRA Vs. SHRI R. N. KAPOOR
LAWS(DLH)-1983-3-48
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on March 08,1983

MAHINDER NARAIN CHOPRA Appellant
VERSUS
R N KAPOOR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PRECISION STEEL & ENGINEERING WORKS AND ANOTHER V. PREM DEVA NIRANJAN DEVA TAYAL [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This revision petition under Section 25-b(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 30th January, 1981 passed by the Sh. M.L. Sawhney, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing the application for the leave to defend and making an order for eviction under proviso (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act in favour of the respondent against the petitioner.
The respondent sought eviction of the petitioner from the premises in disputes consisting of one room, two stores and a kitchen on the ground-floor of house No. 4648 on Gali Pasban, Ballimaran, Delhi, on the allegations that he was the owner of the said premises. The premises had been let out for residential purposes and were bonafide required by him use as residence for himself and members of his family consisting of himself, his wife and two daughters, all dependent on him. He was living in a tenanted premises consisting of one room and a kitchen and had no other reasonably suitable accommodation.

(2.)On the receipt of the summons the petitioner filed an application under Section 25-B for leave to defend. In the affidavit the pleas raised by him are : (1) that the respondent was not the owner of the premises; (2) that the petition was bad for non-joinder of parties inasmuch as Dhoomi Mal, father of the petitioner, was a tenant. On his death he left behind a widow, four daughters and one son, namely, the petitioner. One of the daughters had since died leaving behind three sons and four daughters and all these heirs are necessary parties; (3) the petition was bad for partial eviction. The respondent had not included the terrace and the store in the stairs which were part of the tenancy premises; (4) that the requirement was bonafide. Petitioner's family consisted of himself his wife and one daughter. Besides the accommodation mentioned by him in the application he was in occupation of one big room and a store on the ground floor and a big room, two stores and a kitchen on the first-floor and two barsaties on the second floor of this very house and (5) that no notice had been served. The respondent contested the application.
(3.)After examining the pleas, the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that no reliable issue had been made out and consequently dismissed the application and directed the eviction of the petitioner.
;


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