JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
Page 1861
1. CM(M) 616/2005 seeks to challenge the order dated 19.07.2004 of the Additional Rent Controller in Suit No. E-119/03/01 whereby the Additional Rent Controller has decreed the suit Under Section 14(1)(e) read with Page 1862 Section 25(B) as also Under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, in respect of property No. P-37, NDSE ” II, New Delhi.
2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi are as follows:
the petitions No. 119/03 and 120/03 moved by the petitioners against the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement Under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B and Under Section 14(1)(h) of DRC Act. The evidence led by the petitioners and responents are the same and both cases have been consolidated by Ld.Predecessor vide order dated 30.1.03. As per the petitioner first floor of property No. P-37 N.D.S.E.-II, New Delhi was let out to the respondent on 1.6.76 at a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- for residential purposes only as shown in red colour in site plan. The tenancy was created through an oral agreement. The tenancy premises are required bonafidely by the petitioners to be used as residence for himself and his family members dependent upon him. As per the petitioners they have no other reasonably suitble residential accommodation in Delhi. Two sisters of petitioner No. 1 are married and settled in Delhi and they also visit and stay with the petitioners. The third sister of the petitioner No. 1 is also married nd settled in U.S.A. She also visits and stays with the petitioners. The petitioners are in possession of ground floor comprises only one bedroom, one drawing/dining room, kitchen and bathroom. The family of the petitioner comprises himself, his wife, one son, one daughter and petitioner No. 2 (who has expired during trial). It is further alleged that the respondent has acquired vacant possession of other residential house bearing No. 3611, Sector D, Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi for his residence. He has been corresponding with the DDA at the said address. Respondent has also been allotted on 5.5.93, the MIC Flat bearing No. 159-D, III Florr, Siddhartha Extension, New Delhi by the DDA and has taken the possession of the same. The respondent had filed a Civil Writ petition bearing No. 5475/93 challenging the price of the flat and the said writ petition had been decided in favor of the respondent. Hence the respondent had also rendered himself liable for eviction Under Section 14(1)(h) of DRC Act.
In written statement the respondent has contested the claim of the petitioner stated there in that the petition is bad for mis-joinder of petitioners. As per allegations made in the original petition, petitioner No. 1 has alleged himself to be the owner/landlord of the property in dispute. Although the peritioner No. 2 has been added as a party but there are no allegations in the petition as to in what capacity the petitioner No. 2 has been imp leaded as a party to the present proceedings. On 29.1.96 the counsel for petitioner made a statement adopting the earlier petition on behalf of the petitioner No. 2. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent and petitioner No. 1 has no locus-standi to file the present petition for eviction against the respondent. It is alleged that premises in question were let out to the respondent for residential cum commercial purposes by Smt.Premlata Dey and it has been used for residential Page 1863 cum commercial purposes from the inception of the tenancy. The respondent is a Contractor by profession and he has been carrying on his business under the name and style of M/s Gupta Brothers from the premises in dispute. The respondent was registered as a Contractor with different government departments from the address of the premises in dispute. He has also been maintaining accounts in the name of M/s Gupta Brothers at the address of the premises in dispute. The respondent had been paying the rent in the name of M/s Gupta Brothers. The present petition has been filed in respect of the part of the tenancy premises whereas the respondent is a tenant in respect of entire first floor and the second floor. The accommodation in first floor consists of two bedrooms, kitchen, bath, W.C., open terrace, mumty and fibre glass sheet. The stairs leading from ground floor to first floor are also for the exclusive use of the respondent and the staircase is locked and bolted by the respondent on the ground floor. It is denied that the premises are residential. The suit premises is being used for residential cum commercial purposes It is denied that the premises are required bonafidely by the petitioner No. 1. It is alleged that the petitioner wants to get the premises vacated and to sell the same. It is alleged that there are three bedrooms besides a drawing, dining, kitchen, bath W.C and a store and a varanda on the ground floor of the property in dispute. It is further alleged that the property No. 94/94-A, Block No. IV, Vikram Vihar, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi is also owned by petitioner No. 1 as co-owner. It is denied that two sisters of petitioner No. 1 stay with the petitioner No. 1 overnights. The other sister Smt.Poonam Sehgal is settleed in U.S.A. It is denied that respondent had been allotted a MIG Flat No. 159-D, III Floor, Siddhartha Extension, New Delhi by the DDA or respondent has acquired vacant possession of residential house bearing No. 3611, Sector-D, Block-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. All other allegations have been denied by the respondent. A prayer for dismissal of both petitions have accordingly been made.
3. The Additional Rent Controller found that the premises in question was let out for residential purposes and that the same was bona fide required by the respondent for his residence.
4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the premises was let out to him for composite purposes by Prem Lata in 1976. He contends that Prem Lata, when she came to depose did not deny that she had not let out the premises in 1976 to the petitioner and, therefore, there is nothing on record to dislodge the version of the petitioner.
5. Counsel for the respondent submits that in the eviction petition the case put up by the respondent was categoric, namely, that respondent let out the premises in question to the petitioner for residential purposes and that the tenancy was created by way of an oral agreement. He contends that the respondent was under no obligation to prove that Prem Lata did not let out the premises in 1976 and that he is not required to prove the negative.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the order under challenge as also the material placed before me. Prem Lata Page 1864 appeared as AW-3. She supported the version of the respondent and in her cross-examination the petitioner did not put any questions to her regarding his case, namely, that it was Prem Lata who had let out the premises in question.
7. In that view of the matter the stand taken by the petitioner before me is not justified. Even otherwise, I am of the view that the order under challenge is a well reasoned order taking into consideration the evidence on record and discussing the same. I find no infirmity in the order under challenge.
8. CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS MAIN 616/2005 & C.M.APPL. Nos.5231, 7255/2005 and 5908/2006 are dismissed.