Akhil Chander Bhatnagar vs Lajwanti Bhatnagar
1992 Latest Caselaw 191 Del

JUDGMENT

S.C. Jain, J.

(1) It is a very unfortunate case in which a widow mother was forced to file an eviction petition against her own son. In brief the facts of the case. as are apparent on the record, are that Smt. Lajwanti, respondent herein, alleging herself to be the owner landlady of the premises No. 6D, Bhagat Singh Street, Adarash Nagar, Delhi filed an eviction petition under Section 14. 14C and 14D read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act against Akhil Chander Bhatnagar, petitioner herein on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. In that eviction petition she alleged that she is a retired employee of Delhi Administration and that she is also a widow and she has no other alternative residential accommodation at Delhi and that she requires premises bonafide for her need.

(2) Summons in Schedule Iii were reserved upon the petitioner who made appearance and filed an application u/s 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking leave to defend the eviction petition. Various pleas were taken by the petitioner in the application for grant of leave. The ownership of Smt. Lajwanti was challenged. The purpose of letting as residential was also disputed. The bonafide need of the landlady was questioned. It is stated that she has been residing in Rishikesh most of the time and when in Delhi she stays at the house of her other son who has got sufficient accommodation. For the temporary stay at Delhi she is not entitled to the eviction of the suit premises. The main intention of the landlady is to enhance the rent and to put pressure upon the petitioner and she actually does not need the premises bonafide for her residence. The applicability of Section 14C and 14D has also been disputed.

(3) The Addl Rent Controller did not Find any substance in the pleas taken by the tenant as far as the ground made out under Section 14C and 14D is concerned and passed an eviction order in view of the provisions of Section 14C and 14D but under Section 14 leave was granted only on the limited point of the purpose of letting.

(4) Aggrieved, the petitioner tenant has challenged this order. By the amending act of 1988, some more classes of landlords were carved out from the classes of general landlords. Section 14B, 14C and 14D are the provisions. The landlords who are released or retired persons of the armed forces or dependent of a member of armed forces killed in action have been covered under Section 14B. Retired employees of Central Govt or Delhi Administration are covered by Section 14C and they can recover immediate possession of the premises let out by them if the same are needed for their residence. The landlord who are widows are covered by Section 14D with similar right to recover possession of the premises let out by them or thier husband. These classified landlords are .also given the benefit of summary trial under Chapter Iii by introducing Sections 14B, 14C and 14D in sub section (1) of Section 25B.

(5) To get the relief of eviction under Section 14C, the landlord has to prove that he she is retired employee of Central Govt. or Delhi Administration and that the premises let out by him/her are required for his/her own residence. Such employee may within one year of his retirement or within one year of the commencement of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, whichever is later apply of the Rent Controller for immediate possession of such premises.

(6) Under Section 14D of the Act, as amended a widow being a vulnerable person in the society has been given special protection. Where the landlord is a widow and the premises let out by her or her husband are required for her own residence, she may apply for recovery of immediate possession. It is immaterial whether the premises were let out for residential or commercial purpose. It is also immaterial whether she became widow before or after the premises were let out by herself or her husband. At the time of filing of the eviction petition she must be a widow.

(7) The petitioner tenant did not put much stress on the question of ownership and existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is also not in dispute that she was a retired employee of Delhi Administration and was a widow at the time of filing the eviction petition. The only question which requires determination in this case is whether she bonafide needs the premises for her own residence? In this regard the case of the petitioner tenant is that she is living at Rishikesh and temporarily comes to Delhi to meet her sons and their family members. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the word 'residence' connotes something more than temporary staying and as the legislature did not intend to give right to have the tenant evicted on the ground of bonafide requirement for occupation as residence where the premises are required temporarily without an intention to live permanently no claim can be based.

(8) He further argued that whenever she comes to Delhi she resides with her son at Delhi who has got accommodation to live. She does not need the premises in dispute bonafide and that she wants to let out the premises on higher rent or even on getting Pugri. Earlier also she showed her intention to sell the house. She has been negotiating with the property dealer to dispose of this house. Earlier also when the portions of the house fell vacant she did not occupy the same and this fact shows that she does not need the premises bonafide for her residence.

(9) I do not agree with the counsel for the petitioner in the present circumstances of the case. Admittedly, she does not own or is in possession of any alternative suitable residential accommodation at Delhi for her residence. As per the petitioner's own case she resides with her other sons while at Delhi. She has no legal right to stay in the house of her son. When she has no legal right to stay in the house of her son at Delhi. It cannot be said that she has got alternative residential accommodation at Delhi. The pleas that she has been coming to Delhi only temporarily and has no intention to stay at Delhi permanently is not borne out from record. The landlady being a retired Govt servant has a desire to stay in her own house in the fag end of her life and this desire cannot be said to be malafide. The landlord/landlady is masier of his/her own need. He/she cannot be dictated where to live and how to live. The plea that when the portion in the house became vacant she did not choose to reside does not mean that after her retirement she does not require the premises bonafide for her residence. There is nothing in law which requires the landlord to decide finally as to where she or he would reside after retirement at the time when he lets out any premises to a tenant. His requirement may change from time to time. He may not be clever enough to anticipate things. His/her inability to do so cannot deprive him/her of his/her right which he or she derive.under the Act. Naturally the desire of the landlord/landlady to reside in his/her house after retirement cannot be siad to be malafide. The fact that she has been residing at Rishikesh for some time for her religious sentiments is no grant to refuse ejectment of the tenant, from her house at Delhi. The eviction order passed by the Addl Rent Controller under Sections 14C and 14D against the petitioner is legal and justifed. There is no illegality or infirmity in the said order and it needs no interference.

(10) As the eviction order was passed under Section 14C and 14D of the Delhi Rent Control (amendment) Act 1988, there was no need to deal with the issue raised under Section 14(1)(e). Even otherwise the Controller cannot limit the leave to a particular issue as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Precision Steel Works and Engineering 1982(2) Rcj 643.

(11) In these circumstances I find no merit in this revision petition. The same is dismissed with costs.