Delhi High Court
Ram Partap Sharma vs Smt. Rukmani Devi on 16 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000 IAD Delhi 458, 82 (1999) DLT 878, (2000) 124 PLR 13
Author: V Jain
Bench: V Jain
ORDER
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby an order of eviction was passed way back in the year 1991, the petitioner-tenant has filed the present Civil Revision.
2. Mr. Anil Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Additional Rent Controller has passed the eviction order on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He has contended that the accommodation required for growing children of the eldest son of the petitioner was taken into consideration by Additional Rent Controller although the age of these two children, at the time of filing of the eviction petition in the year 1986, was six and two years, Mr. Gupta has further contended that a room which was vacated by Roshan Lal has not been taken into consideration by Additional Rent controller and if that room would have been taken into consideration as accommodation available with the respondent then there was no bona fide requirement on the part of respondent as his requirement was satisfied. I have perused through the impugned order.
3. The two children of the eldest son of the respondent at the time of the filing of the eviction petition were of the age group of six years and two years. When the impugned order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller in the year 1991, their ages were eleven and seven years. It cannot be said that requirement of these two children could not have been taken into consideration by the Additional Rent Controller. As a matter of fact, on account of the said order granted by this Court, for the last eight years, this matter has been pending and the ages of these two children's are now 19 years and 15 years. I do not find any force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner on this score.
4. With the regard to the room vacated by Roshan Lal on the ground floor in the year 1986, in view of the fact that it has been brought on record that that room was being used by third son for sleeping purpose. Before parting, I would like to observe that in the impugned order the Additional Rent Controller did not agree with the requirement of the respondent for Pooja Room on the ground that she was not keeping a room for Pooja purposes separately and, therefore, requirement of Pooja Room was not necessary for the respondent herein. In the society in which we live, religious and social ethos make it necessary to have a Pooja Room separately. A land lord can not be compelled to have a Pooja Room in a dining room or bed room. Therefore, it was not necessary that a landlord must have to show that he was having a separate Pooja Room at the time of filing of petition in order to establish the requirement of a Pooja Room. With these observations, I dismiss the Civil Revision petition. Even otherwise, I don not find any infirmity with the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, as stated herein above.
5. Dismissed.
6. Interim order stands vacated.
