HARBHAGWAN DASS Vs. KHARAK SINGH
LAWS(DLH)-1983-5-12
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on May 10,1983

HARBHAGWAN DASS Appellant
VERSUS
KHARAK SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.C.Jain, J. - (1.)This is the landlord's petition under Section 25 B(8)of the Delhi Kent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act').
(2.)On 7/05/1976, the petitioner, Harbhagwan Dass filed anapplication under proviso (e) to Sub-section(1) of Section 14 read with Section25-B of the Act seeking eviction of the respondent, Kharak Singh from thepremises in suit, consisting of two rooms, kitchen, bath room, latrine,verandah on the first floor and a terrace on the second floor of Flat No. 14,Jangpura Extension Market, New Delhi. It was averred that the petitionerwas the owner of the said premises and had let out the same to the respondenton 15/05/1972 on a monthly rent of Rs. 250.00 for residential purposes only.The family of the petitioner consisted of himself, his wile, two sons and fourdaughters, all grown up and studying. The accommodation in his possessionconsisting of one room which had been divided into two compartments wasinsufficient and he bonafide required the premises in suit for himself and themembers of his family dependent on him.
(3.)The respondent resisted the petition. It was averred" that the latrinewas on the ground floor and not on the first floor, and the application was,therefore, not maintainable. The respondent had constructed a room on theterrace with the consent of the petitioner and had spent Rs. 3500.00and wasentitled to compensation in case of eviction. The said construction was ofpermanent nature and he had therefore become a permanent tenant. Thesaid room was not included as a part of the tenancy premises and the application was not maintainable. The premises in dispute had been taken by therespondent for and on behalf of the firm Hazara Singh and Sons of whichhe was the sole proprietor, for residential-cum-commercial purposes andwere later on used by the family firm of Kharak Singh styled as KhurmiSons. It was also stated that the petitioner was not the owner of the premisesin suit and was in occupation of a reasonably suitable accommodation and hasno bonafide need.
;


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