Shakuntala Rani vs P.G. Rao
1995 Latest Caselaw 846 Del

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar, J.

(1) The petitioner filed the present eviction petition u/S. 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act), on the ground that she is a widow and the tenanted premises on the ground floor of the property No, 100, Double Storey, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi was required by her for her residence. At the time of institution of the eviction petition in November 1993, the age of the petitioner was stated to be seventy-six years. It was petitioner's case that she was living alone on the first floor of the'same property where the respondent is the tenant on the ground floor. Apart from her old age, the petitioner was stated to be suffering from various ailments which made it difficult for her to climb to the first floor. Secondly, it was pleaded that the petitioner had only one issue, i.e., a married daughter who was residing with her husband at Rajkot. The husband of the petitioner's daughter is due to retire in Dec., 1995. The petitioner's daughter is to join her at Delhi after the retirement of her husband and look after the petitioner in her old age. Therefore, the accommodation was also required for purposes of the family of the daughter which consists of besides her husband two sons and grand children. The petitioner further pleaded that it was not safe for her to live alone at this old age. Till now, she has been managing through the help and assistance of a maid servant. However, now the daughter and her husband are to join her to look after her in her old age. Thus the eviction was sought on two gronds, i.e., first, for need for ground floor in view of the old age and other ailments of the petitioner and secondly, for the requirement of additional accommodation because the married daughter of the petitioner would be residing with her to look after her in her old age.

(2) The respondent tenant filed an affidavit praying for leave to contest the eviction petition. It was stated that the requirement of the petitioner for ground floor based on medical reasons was not genuine and secondly it was stated that the petitioner had no daughter nor the requirement of married daughter for additional accommodation could be considered as requirement of the petitioner. The Addl. R.C, vide the impugned order dated 18th April 1995 granted leave to contest on both the questions, i. e., the requirement of the petitioner to live on the ground floor as also the requirement of additional accommod atation to accommodate the married daughter so that she could look after her mother in view of her old age and failing health.

(3) Taking the second point first, the learned Arc has observed. "There should not be dispute regarding legal proposition that need of married daughter cannot be pleaded by the mother as need of her family member dependent on her". As a proposition of law, I do not think that the Arc was correct in making the said observation. As a general proposition of law, it is settled that requirement of married daughters who come and stay with their parents can be considered while considering the need of the landlord for additional accommodation. Secondly, the facts of the present case show that it is not a case of bare plea that accommodation is required for the married daughter. The Arc should have taken the peculiar facts of the case into consideration before making such an observation.

(4) In the facts of the case, the old mother requires her only daughter to stay with her in her old age and look after her. This makes it a special circumstance where old parents are seeking assistance of their children in their old age. In our society, we do not believe in discarding old parents and generally people take pride in looking after their old and aged parents. In such facts in a given case, the court may even take into consideration the requirement of a close friend who the landlady may trust for staying with her and helping her in her old age. The present is a case of her own daughter willing to join her mother to look after her in her old age. There-fore, the Arc erred in holding that requirement of the family of the married daughter who would be staying with her mother to look after her in her old age could only be considered after taking evidence

(5) Now, coming to the question of requirement of the petitioner to stay on the ground floor on account of her old age and medical condition, / am of the view that the petitioner who is 78 years old, which fact is not in dispute, is itself sufficient to show that she should stay on the ground floor. In addition to this, the petitioner has placed certain medical evidence on record. One of the certificates from Maharaja Agarsain Hospital dated 12th May, 1994 shows that the petitioner suffered fracture of R-Femur-bone, such a fracture at the age of 78 years practically renders the person concerned dependent on others for all their requirements. Asking such a person to climb stairs to go the first floor accommodti on will be too much to say the least. Why should the landlady continue to suffer the pain and agony of climbing up the first floor for the sake of a tenant ?

(6) In view of these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Arc was in total error in granting leave to contest the eviction petition to the respondent in the present case. No friable issues have been raised by the tenant. The order dated 18.4.95 granting leave to contest to the respondent is set aside and the application of the tenant for permission to contest the eviction petition is dismissed. The result is that the averments in the eviction petition are deemed to be correct. An eviction order is passed in favor of the petitioner qua the premises in suit. i. e. the entire ground floor of property no. 400, Double Store New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi as per plan filed by 'he petitioner with the eviction petition. The respondent tenant is, however, granted two months time to vacate the premises. This petition as well as the eviction petition stand disposed of.