AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
22 paragraphs · 423 wordsR.K.GAUBA, J.
The petitioners had instituted a case (RC/ARC No. 385/2016) before the Additional Rent Controller on 04.12.2012 seeking an order of eviction on
the ground of bonafide need under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the respondent who concededly is a tenant in the demised
premises described as one shop at ground floor bearing private no.5, forming part of property no.A-135, Main Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi-110 092.
Upon being served with the summons under Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the respondent had filed an application for leave to contest.
Before the said application could be considered, the first petitioner Noor Jahan Begum died. Her legal heirs were brought on record and, thereafter,
the matter came up for adjudication on the application for leave to contest before the Rent Controller. By order dated 20.03.2017, the Rent Controller
found the eviction petition itself to be not maintainable and thus proceeded to dismiss it. It is the said order which is under challenge by the present
petition.
It appears the petitioners claim to have purchased the property in question from the previous owner on the basis of certain documents that include
an agreement to sell. The respondent had sought to contest the petition denying the claim of the petitioners to be the owner of the premises stating that
the owner-cum-landlord qua her was Het Ram, one G.L. Chopra being his attorney. The Rent Controller has accepted this plea of the respondent
without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to prove their claim to the ownership. Further, in the eviction petition, there is an averment to the effect
that the second and third petitioners were not maintaining cordial relations for which they “want†to work separately. The Rent Controller has
construed from this averment that it is a case of “want†and consequently not a case of “bonafide requirementâ€.
The reasoning set out in the impugned order, to say the least, is most unfair and unjust. The Rent Controller ought not to have drawn conclusions
picking up stray words or sentences from the averments.
The pleadings had to be read and construed in entirety.
The impugned order, therefore, cannot be upheld. It is set aside. The eviction case before the Additional Rent Controller stands revived. It shall be
taken up for further proceedings in accordance with law, beginning with consideration of the application of the respondent for leave to contest, on
10.07.2018. The parties shall appear accordingly.
Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.