Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties at length.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relies on Sec. 14(1)(h) of D.R.C. Act as well as testimonies of witnesses examined by the petitioners. She further contends that respondent has not disputed the acquisition of DDA flat as alleged by the petitioners. She further submits that first issue raised by the respondent is that the tenanted premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes, so section Sec. 14(1)(h) of D.R.C. Act is not applicable to the present case. She also submits that the second issue raised by the respondent is that DDA flat was alloted before the commencement of tenancy of respondent. She also relies upon the testimonies of the witnesses claiming that it is proved on record that the tenanted premises was let out for residential purposes only. She relies upon the electricity connection record, house tax record and survey report etc. claiming that the the tenanted premises were let out for residential purposes only and not for composite purposes. She also claims that there is no dispute in respect of landlordship as well as ownership of the petitioners raised by the respondent. She claims that the petitioners came to know about the allotment of DDA flat to the respondent only in the year 2011. It is argued that the respondent himself has admitted to have been alloted such DDA flat in the year 1986. She also claims that respondent fraudulently took the signatures on two rent receipts from the father of petitioners mentioning word "Business". But all other rent receipts do not show this word i.e. "Business". She further submits that respondent has manipulated that the tenanted premises were being used by the respondent as commercial use. She further submits that the respondent is residing in Spain for the last many years and he is having status of N.R.I/ O.S.I. As such, he is not running the commercial activities in the tenanted premises. She also claims that it is not possible to run factory in the tenanted premises when there are 7-8 people already residing. She also refers to the testimony of respondent wherein the respondent has admitted that there is no sign board on the tenanted premises regarding his factory/ commercial activities. Lastly, she prays to the court to pass an eviction order against the respondent.

32. Record shows that the petitioners have alleged that the respondent has been allotted DDA flat in Madipur. On the other hand, the respondent has admitted that he was allotted a DDA flat as alleged by the petitioners. As such, allotment of a flat for residence to the respondent is not disputed and it is an admitted fact by the respondent.

33. The contention of the respondent is that although he has acquired the DDA Flat as alleged by the petitioners but the same was allotted to him before the commencement of his tenancy.

The claim of the respondent is that he was allotted the DDA flat concerned in the year 1986 and it was changed in the year 1992 by the DDA. As such, respondent himself has admitted that he has been allotted the flat for residence but the claim of the respondent is that he was allotted before starting of his tenancy and not during his tenancy.

34. Record also shows that the tenanted premises were let out in the year 1996 as per the claim of petitioner. On the other hand, the respondent has claimed that the tenanted premises were let out to his father in the year 1964. Whereas the respondent has himself admitted that he was allotted flat in the year 1986 by the DDA.

On the other hand, the petitioners have claimed the tenancy of father of petitioner started in 1966 and the respondent was tenant in the tenanted premises when he was allotted the DDA flat.

36. Perusal of record shows that the respondent himself has admitted to have been allotted the DDA flat in the year 1986. Even certain documents have been placed on record by both the parties to prove the allotment of DDA Flat. As such, the year of allotment of DDA flat is also not disputed and it is proved on record as 1986.