Prakash Wati vs Mahavir Singh Kakkar
1990 Latest Caselaw 38 Del

JUDGMENT

N.N. Goswamy, J.

(1) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the owner-landlady is directed against the order dated 30th October, 1982 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby her petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act was dismissed.

(2) In paragraph 18(a) of the eviction petition filed by the petitioner it was alleged: "The petitioner is the owner of the property in dispute. The property is residential and was let out to the respondent for residential purposes and the same has always been used by the respondent for residential purposes. The petitioner bona fide requires the premises in dispute for her own residence and for the residence of her family members dependant upon her. The petitioner is not in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation. The family of the petitioner consists of herself, her husband and two sons aged 16 and 11. Both the sons are school-going. The husband of the petitioner is a Company Secretary in Regal Paper Ltd., Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi and is drawing total emoluments of Rs.2715.00 P.M. 'The petitioner is in possession of only the first floor of the said premises and a Kothri on the ground floor which has passage through the dalan under the tenancy of the respondent. The rooms are, too, small to accommodate the petitioner and her family. The petitioner has no space even for the residence of all the family members. The petitioner needs two bed rooms for the children, drawing room, dining room and guest rooms etc. The petitioner has bona fide intention to occupy the premises after getting the same vacated from the respondent. The present accommodation with the petitioner is neither sufficient nor suitable taking into consideration the status of the family. The petitioner does not own any other property except the property in dispute."

(3) The petition was contested by the respondent only on the ground that the need of the petitioner was not bona fide and the accommodation in her sufficient for the family. There is no dispute regarding the ownership or the letting purpose. The learned Additional Rent Controller after perusal of the site plan and the evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner had three rooms on the first floor and one room on the ground floor in her possession and this accommodation was sufficient for her requirements. Consequently the petition was dismissed.

(4) It is not disputed that the total plot on which the building stands measures only 80 sq. yards and the covered area is 600 sq. feet. This includes the portion in possession of the respondent tenant. According to the site plan which is again not disputed the accommodation in possession of the petitioner is two rooms on the first floor measuring 10x'1.6' and 6.3'x7.6'. The third room, even if we call it a room, is of the size 7.6' x 6.3'. According to the petitioner it is being used as a store, the so called Kothri on the ground floor measures 8' x 6.4' Assuming that the store on the first floor can also be used as a room, none of the three rooms on the first floor can accommodate more than one cot. There is no dispute that the family of the petitioner consists of four members including two grown up sons now aged 26 years and 22 years. Both the sons are also working and the status of the petitioner's husband has also risen and he is drawing a salary of over Rs.4000.00 per month. In this situation necessarily one rooms is required for each of the member of the family and atleast one room to be used as drawing-cum-dining even if we provide no accommodation for the guests. This much accommodation is admittedly not available with the petitioner. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the requirements of the petitioner are not bona fide.

(5) The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the accommodation in the whole house is not sufficient for the petitioner and as such the petitioner may ultimately shift to another house and as such it should be held that her requirements are not bona fide. The argument has simply to be rejected because it is for the petitioner to choose as to whether she wants to live in her own house or elsewhere. It is true that even entire accommodation in the house including the one in possession of the respondent cannot be sufficient for the petitioner but that does not mean that the requirement of the petitioner for the additional accommodation in possession of the respondent is not bona fide.

(6) For the reasons recorded above this revision petition is allowed and the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 30th October, 1982 is set aside. Eviction petition stands decreed. The respondent will have statutory period of six months to hand over vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the petitioner. No order as to costs.