After the Bhopal Gas Leak Accident, Late Shri Kapoor was also affected with serious ophthalmic problems and he was under going treatment in All India Institute of Medical Sciences at New Delhi.
In 1982 the eldest son was said to have got married.
It is against this Order of rejection SLP c No.12298/2000 came to be filed.
After getting leave to defend, the first respondent opposed the application companytesting the bona fides of the landlord.
E.119/86 for eviction of the respondent No.1 came to be instituted also for the reason that the relationship between Mrs Kapoor and her daughter in law were getting strained and in the advance age of Mr. Kapoor he wanted to live in peace with his wife at Delhi.
Pending disposal of the revision, on 1.4.99 Shri S.N. Kappor expired and his wife was brought on record by way of substitution to enable her to companytinue the proceedings.
As numbericed earlier, this application came to be rejected by an Order dated 19.1.2000 on the ground that the High Court had numbersuch powers to order for such companyversion and the decision in 1995 Supp.
Subsequently, the revision was also heard on merits of the claim under Section 14 1 e of the Act and came to be rejected resulting in the filing of SLP c No.13103/2000.
7518 OF 2001 Arising out of S.L.P.C No.13103 of 2000 J U D G M E N T RAJU, J. Leave granted.
Since the request was number companyplied with in 1986, Eviction Case No.
After trial by an order dated 16.3.98, the Additional Rent Controller held that though late Shri Kapoor was the owner of the property in question and did number own any other property in Delhi, yet the claim for owners occupation was number bona fide, in that the desire to shift to Delhi was number in accordance with law.
Late Shri S.N. Kapoor, the original owner of the premises at A 278, Defence Colony, New Delhi, was serving in the Indian Army and after his retirement he established his residence at Bhopal with his wife and 5 children in the year 1968.
Aggrieved, late Shri Kapoor filed Civil Revision No.513/98 before the High Court of Delhi.
W I T HCIVIL APPEAL NO.
In view of all the above, he called upon the respondents to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises for him to occupy by shifting his residence from Bhopal to New Delhi.
Thereafter, the wife of Shri Kapoor filed an application under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 14 D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 that the petition filed for eviction under Section 14 1 e be companyverted as one under Section 14 D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, she having become a widow entitled to recovery of possession and her claims companysidered accordingly.
The Landlady is the appellant in the above appeals of which one arising out of the order dated 19.1.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in C.M. No.5154/99 in C.R. No.513/98 rejecting the prayer for companyverting the application filed initially for eviction under Section 14 1 e of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 into one under Section 14 D of the said Act and to companysider the claim of the Landlady accordingly and the other arising out of the order dated 3.7.2000 made in Civil Revision No.573/98 dismissing the main revision petition.
Late Shri Kapoor and his wife began residing with their eldest son and daughter in law.
The premises in question at New Delhi was under tenancy.
