JAYANT NATH,J. - (1.)Caveat 236/2017 Since the learned counsel for the respondent has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged. CM No.10071/2017 (exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. RC.REV. 121/2017 and CM No.10070/2017(stay) By the present Revision Petition filed under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) the petitioner seeks to impugn order dated 28.7.2016 by which order the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to defend was dismissed and an eviction order was passed. The respondent/landlord has filed the present eviction petition for eviction of property No. A-11/85, Sector-18, Second Floor, MIG Flat, Rohini, Delhi-110085 for the bona fide requirement of himself and his family. It is alleged that earlier the family of the respondent was residing in their own house at Noida and the family was joint family. On account of temperamental differences it was not possible for the whole family to stay together. The house at Noida was sold off by the wife of the respondent who was the owner. The family shifted to a flat in Vikas Puri. The elder son and his family are staying in a rented accommodation in Lajpat Nagar paying a monthly rent of Rs.4,000.00 per month. The wife of the respondent had applied the entire consideration received from the sale of the house at Noida to purchase flat No.108A. DDA Flats, GG-I Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi which is a flat having two bedroom, one drawing cum dining room, kitchen, toilet etc. The respondent and his wife need one bed room. The petitioner has a younger son who needs another bed room though he is presently studying and staying in the hostel but often visits and stays in the flat of the family. Sometime guests also visit the house of the respondent and the accommodation is insufficient. Hence, the elder son Shri Yogesh and his family cannot reside in the premises. It was further stated that the respondent was working in a PSU and was to retire on 30.4.2014. The respondent had earlier also filed an eviction petition. However, the same was withdrawn on 25.01.2012 with liberty to file the present petition.
(2.)The ARC by the impugned order on the issue of landlord-tenant relationship noted that the same is not disputed by the petitioner. It also noted that the petitioner challenges the bona fide need of the respondent pleading that the respondent has accommodation of a 150 sq.yards plot having 14 rooms in Noida and that the present petition is mala fide. It noted the contention of the respondent that the said property has been sold and entire consideration has been used to purchase the flat at Vikas Puri. Hence, the said plea of the petitioner was rejected by the ARC. The ARC also noted the contention of the petitioner i.e. that the respondent and his elder son are having differences with the family but rejected the same. The order also notes that the petitioner has denied that the son is staying in Lajpat Nagar and has claimed that the rent receipt regarding the Lajpat Nagar house is forged. It noted that the respondent has placed on record the ITR Return of the elder son which is of Lajpat Nagar. Hence, the said contention of the petitioner was rejected. Noting that the accommodation is not sufficient for the family in Vikaspuri the application for leave to defend was dismissed and the eviction petition was allowed.
(3.)I have heard learned counsel for the parties.