S K GUPTA Vs. R C JAIN
LAWS(DLH)-1983-2-7
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 11,1983

S.K.GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
R.C.JAIN Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

K D GUPTA VS. H L MALHOTRA [LAWS(DLH)-1992-5-18] [REFERRED]
AMRIT LAL VS. JAGPAL SINGH VERMA [LAWS(DLH)-1996-7-111] [REFERRED]
RAMESHWAR GOSWAMI VS. KULDEEP KUMAR MATHUR [LAWS(DLH)-1997-7-28] [REFERRED]
ANAND PRASAD SHARMA VS. RAM SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2006-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
K B SAHA AND SONS BIRI MERCHANTS PVT LTD VS. DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2001-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD VS. KRISHNA DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-1987-2-110] [REFERRED TO]
RAM MOHAN AND CO VS. GANESAR GINNING CO P LTD [LAWS(MAD)-1999-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
LUCKY @ GURMEET SINGH VS. LAJ KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-737] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This revision under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (for short 'the Act') challenges the judgment and order of the Additional Controller dt. 16th Jan. 1982 dismissing the petitioner's application for eviction of the respondent.
(2.)Briefly the facts are that on l2th Oct. 1978 the petitioners filed an applition for eviction on the ground mentioned in S. 14 (l) (e) of the Act. They have alleged that the respondent has been their tenant in a portion on ground floor of Property No. 6404/2, Block 7B (popularly known as Block No. 7) Gali No. 4, Ward No. XVI. Dey Nagor. Karol Bagh. New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rupees 400.00 excluding water and electricity charges since 21st August. 1973 vide a rent note executed by him. that petitioner No. 1 is the owner-landlord while petitioner No. 2 is also the landlady of the premises which were let for residential purposes, that the same are required bona fide by them for occupation as residence for themselves and family members dependent upon them. that they have no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It has also been alleged that the family of petitioner No. 1 comprises of himself, his wife (petitioner No. 2) five daughters out of which two are married having children. three sons of marriageable age. that the married daughters visit the petitioners and they have only first floor and mezzanine floor of the said 'property which is insufficient for their requirements. that petitioner No. 1 is employed as C. P. W. D. Engineer drawing Rs. 1540.00 per month and his sons are also employed, that the respondent with his family was residing in the premises and had acquired vacant possession of premises No. 131, Main Market. Shanker Road, New Rajinder Nagar. New Delhi where he had removed all his household goods and his family had shifted there in Aug. 1978. that his mother alone is in occupation of the suit premises. They also allege that the father of the petitioner No. 1 had taken the plot on lease from the Delhi Improvement Trust, that he constructed a house and in a family partition the suit property had fallen to the share of petitioner No. 1.
(3.)The respondent under S. 25-B (4) of the Act made an application for leave to contest but it was dismissed by the Additional Controller. On revision this Court in C. R. NO. 94 of 1979 by judgment dt. 7th August. 1979* granted leave to the respondent to contest the eviction application.
;


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