Kavita Tara And Ors. vs Karam Kaur
1997 Latest Caselaw 478 Del

JUDGMENT

Usha Mehra, J.

(1) Smt. Karam Kaur, widow of Shri Moti Ram, resident of 4-A/60, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi felt short of accommodation. She, therefore, filed a petition for eviction as a classified landlord under Section 14-D of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) against this petitioner. Her case as set up in the petition was that the house in question is built on 85 sq. yards of land. Her family consists of three married sons and two married daughters besides one unmarried daughter who is living with her. That daughter is insane. Her each of the three married sons have got their children. At the time of filing the petition, the eldest and middle son had two children each. The youngest had one child but during the pendency of the petition the third son also got another child. The three rooms on the first floor are in occupation other three married sons. On the ground floor there is only one room which is being used by them as drawing room. She alongwith her daughter sleep in that room. She has no separate room for herself nor any room for the guests, visiting daughters and their family. It was in this background that she sought eviction.

(2) The petitioner is a tenant in one room on the ground floor of the premises in question. He applied for leave to contest the petition. Leave was granted, primarily on the ground that landlady has sufficient accommodation and that the room which was vacated by another tenant other ground floor instead of using the same for residence was let out to her son for business purposes. This shows her need was not bonafide. Artificial scarcity had been created by the landlady, had her need was genuine she would not have given the room to her son for running business. However, if she required additional accommodation she could re-construct the tenanted premises under the tenancy of the petitioner. Tenanted room has asbestos sheets roof. This room being in dilapidated condition is not habitable.

(3) Landlady examined her son Mr. Hardesh Nagpal as Aw 1. Her son-in-law deposed as Aw 2. The petitioner examined only herself as Public Witness 1. After considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, learned Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC) vide the impugned order dated 12th September, 1996 granted decree of eviction against the petitioner with a direction to the petitioner to vacate the premises within two months.

(4) Grievance of the petitioner is that learned Arc erroneously ignored the fact that when the adjoining shop fell vacant this landlady carried out large scale additions and alterations and made pacca roof over the same. She constructed an additional room on the pacca roof. Thus on the first floor she added one room. She also covered the varandah and converted the same into a full-fledged room. The original kitchen on the ground floor has also been converted into a room. She has made a new kitchen instead. Thus the respondent/landlady has three rooms in her possession on the ground floor besides kitchen, bath room, toilet etc. This aspect has been completely ignored by the learned ARC. Moreover, the respondent concealed the factual position with regard to her requirement. She does not require seven rooms. The accommodation with her is sufficient i.e. three rooms on the first floor. Beside her conduct was also not taken note of by the learned ARC. When the adjacent shop was vacated by the other tenant Shri Ram, she instead of using for her residence gave it and three rooms on the ground floor to her son for running his business. Even otherwise her sons are not dependent on her for accommodation purposes. They arc financially very well. That by refusing to accept the offer of the petitioner to convert the roof of the tenanted premises into a pacca one and raising additional room over the shop as was done when adjacent shop was vacated by Sri Ram it is apparent that she does noi require additional accommodation. Her sons have got their own independent accommodation, therefore, they are not dependent on her. These facts fully establish that the claim of the respondent is cooked up and not bonafide.

(5) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the oustset, it must be said that the object of adding Section 14-D of Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988 was to assist the vulnerable and needy section of the society. To enable them to recover the possession of the premises as expeditiously as possible and without the usual trial and tabulations. In the case of V. Rajeshwari v. Bombay Tyres Int. Ltd. reported in, 1994 Rlr (SC) 365 while dealing with the prayer of a widow landlady who sought possession of the premises the Apex Court observed that to success in a petition filed under Section 14-D of the Act two requirements are to be seen. One the petitioner to be a widow and the other she needs the premises for her residence. In this case so far as the first is concerned that is obvious. The respondent herein (petitioner before the Trial Court) is a widow. As regards her requirement the same has not to be proved in the same way as if this petition is filed under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. No doubt the word "required" used under Section 14-D of the Act involves something more than a mere wish. It has an element of need to that extent at least. By the need it means her own need and the need of the members of her family dependent on her. It has come on record by the testimony of the present petitioner (RW 1) that the respondent has three rooms on the first floor. It has also been proved by the testimony of Aw 1, Aw 2 and of Rw I that all the three rooms on the first floor are in occupation of landlady's three sons and their families. This petitioner appearing as Rw 1 also admitted that there are two kitchens on the ground floor besides one on the first floor. The site plan Exhibit Aw I/I was proved by the respondent through Aw 1 and Aw 2. No site plan was filed by the present petitioner. The site plan Ex. AW-1/1 furnishes the measurement of two rooms i.e., rooms marked 'D' and 'Z'. However, measurement of other rooms, kitchen, bath and toilet have not been given. Aw 1 testified that room marked 'X' has been used as kitchen by him. Room mark 'Y' is being used as kitchen by his brother Mr. Manphool Nagpal. Room marked 'Z' is being used for commercial purpose by his younger brother as he is without any job. Thus landlady is left with no independent room for herself and her daughter who is insane. On the ground floor there is only one living room which according to Aw 1 and Aw 2 is being used as drawing room by all the members of respondent's family. She with her daughter sleeps at night in that room. Aw 1 and Aw 2 gave the measurements of the kitchen marked 'X' and 'Y' which according to them is not more than 6 x 6". It was denied by them that the area of the kitchen room is 11x11'. In fact the present petitioner when she stepped into the witness box could not deny the area of the kitchen as stated by Aw I and Aw 2 except saying that those are being used as living rooms. Petitioner appearing as Rw I admitted that the two sons of the respondent have been using the kitchen on the ground floor and one son using the kitchen on the first floor. In view of this admission of Rw I, it does not lie in her mouth now to contend that the area of the kitchens on the ground floor marked "X' and "Y' have been used by the landlady as living rooms. Taking into consideration the family of the respondent/ landlady, I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Arc that she requires minimum seven rooms. Two rooms each by her married sons. One room for the lad lady herself and her insane daughter. Besides she also requires a drawing and dining room and a guest room for her visiting married daughters. Such an accommodation is not available to her in the existing accommodation. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Arc cannot be faulted with. The landlady has only one room on the ground floor and three rooms on the first floor. That accommodation cannot be called sufficient nor her needs can be met with that much accommodation. Her requirement can be called fanciful or whimsical.

(6) As regards the offer given by the petitioner that the landlady should built pacca roof on the tenanted premises and raise additional construction in order to meet her requirement, to my mind, the refusal of such an offer by the landlady does not show that requirement is not bonafide nor she is bound to accept such an offer. Whether she should construct an additional room or not is not for the tenant to dictate. Controller has to see the requirement of the landlady as on the date of passing the order. Whether she should constructed additional or not can not be looked into and, therefore, this offer has no relevance nor any bearing on the decision of the case

(7) For the reason above, i find no merits in the petition, dismissed