RCR No.441/2012 Page 1 of 9

.*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

RC.REV. 441/2012 & C.M. No.15129/2012

RAJENDER @ RAJENDER KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Adv.

versus

RAJ BALA

..... Respondent

Through

None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1.

The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section

25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)

against the eviction order dated 9^th February, 2012 passed against the

petitioner by the ARC-01, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

2.

Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are

that the respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under

Section 14(1) (e) of the Act in respect of one room situated on the ground

floor of the property bearing No. P-106, Gali No. 6, Shankar Nagar Ext.,

Delhi-110051 (hereinafter referred to as “the tenanted premises”). It was

stated that the tenanted premises was let out for residential purposes and that

the rate of rent at the time of filing the eviction petition was `2,000/- per

month.

3.

The respondent stated in the eviction petition that there are 10 tenants

occupying different portions of the property bearing no. P-106, Gali No. 6,

2013:DHC:6447

RCR No.441/2012 Page 2 of 9

Shankar Nagar Ext., Delhi-110051 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit

property”), details of which are as under:

(i)

Ground floor consists of 4 rooms, 2 kitchens, 2 shops, 1 common

bathroom and 1 toilet.

(ii)

First floor consists of 5 rooms, 2 kitchens, 2 bathrooms and 1 toilet.

(iii)

Second floor consists of 5 rooms, 2 kitchens, 2 bathrooms and 1 toilet.

(iv)

Third floor consists of 3 rooms.

4.

It was stated that the family of the respondent consisted of 14

members, including herself, 3 married sons (one of whom had expired), their

wives, grandchildren of the respondent and a married daughter. It was stated

that while both the sons of the respondent were residing on rent alongwith

their families, details of the rental accommodations being given; the

respondent and her other family members were in occupation of 4 small

rooms on the second floor and one store room on the third floor.

5.

It was stated in the petition that the respondent required the entire suit

property for the residential use for herself and for her family as well as for

the purpose of opening her own shop of general store to earn her livelihood

with the help of her grand-children and widowed daughter in law. It was

further stated that there was paucity of residence for the respondent and for

her family members due to which the two sons of the respondent were not

able to shift to the suit property alongwith their families.

6.

The requirement of the respondent was stated to be of 4 pooja rooms

in each block, 4 store rooms on each floor and the arrangement of how each

floor would be required by all the sons of three families was mentioned in

detail in the eviction petition.

2013:DHC:6447

RCR No.441/2012 Page 3 of 9

7.

In the leave to defend application, the petitioner disputed the

ownership of the respondent with respect to the suit property. It was

contended that the petition was based upon a General Attorney dated 2^nd

April, 1982, which was not a registered document and hence, not admissible

in law. It was averred that the respondent was appointed only as attorney by

her principle Ram Dass that too in respect of one room, open courtyard and

boundary wall.

8.

It was contended that the respondent had sufficient accommodation in

her possession and it was averred that she was in possession of more rooms

than stated in