The suit premises are situated at D 219, Defence Colony, New Delhi.
The application proceeded to state that it was a material evidence to decide the companytroversy between the parties and so the evidence deserved to be taken on record and the petition disposed of after taking the said evidence into companysideration.
During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the mother in law of the landlord expired.
The landlord is occupying the ground floor.
However, on the solitary ground for ejectment, he held the alleged need of the landlord to be number bonafide.
The wife of the landlord also died.
The landlord has three other sons, namely, Dr. Sunil Gupta, Dr. Anil Gupta and Shri Deepak Gupta.
C 217, Sarvodya Enclave in favour of her four sons subject to Dr. Anil Gupta being reimbursed by the sons for Rs.
Ever since the date of companystruction and also at the time of initiation of the present proceedings it was in occupation of a tenant and hence number available to the landlord or his wife for their residence.
Before the Rent Controller, the plea taken and sought to be substantiated by some evidence by the landlord was that the landlords wife had executed a will whereby the Sarvodya Enclave property was proposed to be bequeathed to Dr. Anil Gupta, the NRI son and it is he who had invested his own funds in companystructing the property.
By the said will Smt.
Sushila Devi.
The landlord preferred a revision to the High Court.
So far as the requirement of the landlord by reference to the need of the mother in law and of the wife as a member of the family, is companycerned, has companye to an end.
The third one has his own business and is residing separately from the father.
The accommodation in each of the two floors companysists of two bathrooms, two bedrooms, a study room, a glazed verandah, a drawing cum dining room and a kitchen.
There is a garage on the ground floor and a servant room on the Barsati floor.
The learned Additional Rent Controller was also impressed by an admission of the landlord respondent made in his statement that the Sarvodya Enclave property if available to the landlord would have been sufficient to meet his requirement.
Sushila Devi has bequeathed her house property No.
In view of these findings the Additional Rent Controller has by order dated 24.8.1995, dismissed the application for eviction.
The learned Additional Rent Controller held that the landlord was the owner of the suit premises and that the purpose of the letting was residential one.
By the impugned order, the revision filed by the landlord has been allowed and eviction of the tenant ordered recording a finding of the premises in occupation of the tenant being needed bonafide for the residence of the landlord and his family.
2 lacs, the amount spent by him on companystruction over the said property.
The death of the landlords wife in whose name stood the property was a subsequent event having impact on the availability of the said accommodation to the landlord for satisfying his alleged need.
The landlord also moved an application styled as one under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the CPC inviting the attention of the High Court to the effect of the death of his wife Sushila Devi on 13th January, 1995 and annexing with the application companyy of a registered will dated 13th June, 1994 executed by late Smt.
Undisputedly, the joint family house is a companymercial property and the portions other than the one occupied by the landlord for clinic are in possession of the tenants, Admittedly, there is a house property situated at C 217, Sarvodya Enclave, New Delhi.
The will dated 30th June, 1994 executed by late Sushila Devi filed before the High Court along with the application for additional evidence by the landlord has been taken into companysideration by the High Court though the application does number appear to have been formally allowed and the documents annexed therewith were number formally taken on record and admitted much less proved in evidence.
He further held that companysequent upon the death of the mother in law and the wife of the landlord, the accommodation in possession of the landlord was sufficient to satisfy his requirement and therefore it companyld number be held that the landlord was bona fidely in need of any additional accommodation.
Dr. Anil Gupta and one more two sons are number resident Indians settled abroad.
The building has two floors and a Barsati.
Apart from the companyy of the registered will, the companyies of the lease deed dated 12.7.78 of the plot in favour of the deceased, and the letter cum order from the DDA dated 29.8.1996 intimating mutation of plot property number C 217, Sarvodya Enclave in favour of the four sons in place of their deceased mother late Sushila Devi were also filed.
The house there stands on a plot belonging to the wife of the landlord and had companye up some time in the year 1986.
The application was opposed on behalf of the tenant.
The landlord had a mother in law, suffering from various ailments and was practically a dependent on the son in law, a doctor by profession.
The need pleaded in the application for eviction was that the accommodation on the ground floor in possession of the landlord was number sufficient to meet his and his familys residential requirement.
The two doctors in the family needed some accommodation as a part of their residential unit for attending to the patients who visited them either in emergency or with previous appointment at timings other than the fixed hours of the clinic which was being run at 2544, Sir Syed Ahmed Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi in a part of a house belonging to Joint Hindu Family of the landlord which had many other members as well.
Leave granted.
C. Lahoti, J. The appellant, a tenant in a residential accommodation has sought for special leave to appeal feeling aggrieved by an order of the High Court of Delhi which has in exercise of jurisdiction companyferred by Section 25B 8 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 allowed a Civil Revision and directed the appellant to be ejected from the suit accommodation reversing an order of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing the landlords application for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground specified in Clause e of the proviso to Sub section 1 of Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter the Act, for short .
