Subhash Chand vs Chameli Devi
1996 Latest Caselaw 64 Del

JUDGMENT

C.M. Nayar, J.

(1) The present petition is directed against the judgment dated September 1,1989 of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The learned Judge allowed the petition of the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act and granted eviction from the tenanted premises.

(2) The petitioner is a tenant in the demised premises, which was let out to him for residential purposes and it was pleaded that the same were required for the bonafide need of the respondent for his own residence and also for the residence of her family members dependent on her. It was further alleged that the respondent had no other reasonably suitable accommodation available to her in Delhi. The family of the respondent consists of herself, her husband, three daughters, one son, daughter-in-law and two grand sons. The husband was employed as Daftri in the Ministry of Commerce and was getting a salary of about Rs. 900.00 per month and it is stated that he has since retired from service. The eldest daughter of the respondent is married and it is alleged that she is living with her family with the respondent in the demised premises. The second daughter of the respondent is also married but she had not yet gone to the house of her husband at the time of filing of the petition. The third daughter was only 10 years of age at that time. Similarly, the son of the respondent is married and has a wife and child. The son along with his family is living with the respondent in the property. The averment is made that the accommodation, which has been available to the respondent consisted of only one room and it was not sufficient for the residential need of the respondent and her family. Therefore, a decree for eviction was prayed for.

(3) The petitioner-tenant filed written statement wherein he took the usual pleas that the petition was not maintainable as same had been filed with sole motive of getting the rent enhanced, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, that the respondent had never resided in Delhi or ever occupied any portion of the property and, therefore, the need of the respondent could not be held to be bonafide. It was also pleaded by the petitioner that one Suraj Nath was earlier occupying the constructed portion on the first floor for the last 6- 7 months was now in occupation of one Ram Bilas as a tenant. Therefore, it was argued that if the respondent was really in need of the demised premises she would not have let out a room which was let to AmirChand or Ram Bilas immediately prior to the filing of the petition. The parties led their respective evidence.

(4) The learned Additional Rent Controller examined the respective plea of the parties as well as appraised the evidence on record and came to the following conclusions: (a) The ownership of the property had been proved by the respondent and it was held that she was in fact the owner of the property in view of the sale deed Ext. A.I. (b) The premises had been let out for residential purposes and there was no dispute with regard to the same. (c) The tenanted premises consisted of a room only and the petitioner was in possession of the same as a tenant which is so indicated in the site plan Ext. A.3. (d) There was no dispute regarding the number of family members of the respondent which comprised of the respondent herself, her husband, her three daughters and one married son as well as daughter-in-law and their two children. It was also held that the elder daughter of the respondent was married and her family consisted of her husband and two children and they were living with the respondent.

(5) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. There is no dispute about the size of the family of the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the requirement of the respondent is not bonafide, as will be indicated from her conduct which she displayed by reletting two rooms after they were vacated. This aspect is squarely dealt with by the Rent Controller and the version of the petitioner has not been believed. The Court came to the conclusion that there was no fresh induction of Swami Nath in the property in dispute rind otherwise also the petitioner himself admitted that the roof of the room in which Swami Nath was residing was of tin shed and its walls were partly of brick, and partly of wood. In this background, even if it is accepted that some portion of the property fell vacant, it could not be termed as suitable for the residential need of the respondent though there is no proof that the respondent let out the above said rooms during the pendency of proceedings before the Rent Controller. 'Die family of the respondent is- comprised of large numbers and there is no dispute with regard to the same.

(6) The other argument, which is made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. if. that the respondent has since retired from service and is n-siding in his village and he is not in need of any accommodation in Delhi. This statement is made in Court. No weight can be attached to the same as it will require further investigation which cannot be entered into at this stage of the proceedings. The fact remains that the husband of the respondent has retired as Daftri on 31st January, 1989 from the Ministry of Commerce where he was employed, as contended by k'amed Counsel tor the respondent and it is again reiterated that the firmly now requires the accommodation bonafide. It is not open for this Court to appraise the evidence in these circumstances. Trie Additional Rent Controller has clearly come to the conclusion on the basis of existence on record that the petition for eviction was liable to be allowed. There is no illegality and infirmity in the Order. The same is, accordingly, upheld.

(7) The present petition fail.- and is dismissed. In the acts of the present case. the petitioner is, however, granted time till 30th September, 1996 to vacate the demised premises on his furnishing an affidavit of undertaking in this regard within two weeks from today. There will be no order as to cos? .