JUDGMENT

Indermeet Kaur, J. (Oral)

1. Order impugned is the order dated 12.01.2004; the eviction petition filed by Triloki Nath Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the ' landlord') seeking eviction of his tenant Shambhoo Singh Verma (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant') under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed.

2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement. Premises comprise of one room and dalan in front of premises No.9961/XVI, Ram Behari Road, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi; contention was that the premises had been let out to the tenant for a residential purpose; there was no written agreement; tenancy was oral; the petitioner now requires the premises bonafide for his own residence; his family consists of himself, his wife, his three sons ages 48 years, 42 years and 38 years; elder son is also married and has three children; the second son is also married with two children and the third son is also married and has two daughters. The petitioner also has three daughters all of whom are married. The accommodation presently available with the petitioner is in the same property i.e. property bearing No. 9954/A, street No. 5, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi which comprises of three rooms, one kitchen, one bathroom and one store room out of which one room is in occupation of his youngest son Raj Kumar Sharma and his family; these premises are required by the petitioner for the residence of his eldest son who has a family of three children aged 20 years, 15 years and 10 years; the petitioner is the owner of properties bearing No. 9954 to 9956/XVI and 9961 to 9965/XLI, Ram Behari Road, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi; this was by virtue of a Will; all the aforenoted properties are occupied by different tenants except property bearing No. 9954/A in which the petitioner is residing with his family members who are dependent upon him. Accommodation presently available with the petitioner is highly insufficient. The petitioner's three married daughters along with their husbands and children often visit him; he cannot entertain his relatives and guests; he also has no separate pooja room; for all the aforenoted reasons, the eviction petition was filed.

3. Leave to defend had been granted to the tenant. Written statement was filed. Relationship of landlord-tenant was disputed; it was denied that the landlord is the owner of the disputed premises; contention was that the Will purported to have been executed in favour of the petitioner is not a valid document; the property belongs to Mahant Budha Dass who is the owner of the said premises; there being no relationship of landlord-tenant, present eviction petition is liable to be dismissed. Further contention was that the bonafide requirement of the landlord has not been depicted and for all the aforenoted reason, the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Oral and documentary evidence was led.

5. PW-1 was the landlady Kusum Lata Sharma; she was the legal representative of deceased Triloki Nath Sharma who had been brought on record; she was his daughter; she has proved the Will Ex. PW-1/A by virtue of which her father had become the owner of the suit property; mutation letter whereby the property had been mutated in the name of her father Triloki Nath Sharma was proved as Ex. PW-1/B; house tax receipts were proved as Ex. PW-1/C to Ex. PW-1/D; she had on oath deposed that elder brother Rajeshwar Nath Sharma is residing in a rented accommodation in the same locality along with his wife, two sons and one daughter of whom Manish is now marriageable age; her mother is handicapped; she needs two attendants to look after her; her brother Rajeshwar Nath visis his mother regularly both in the morning and evening but because of paucity of accommodation he is not in a position to stay with his mother and to look after her; PW-1 has also deposited that she also visits her mother along with her three chil