Narender Kumar Jain vs Sham Lal Gulati
2000 Latest Caselaw 398 Del

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Admit.

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 13th September, 1999 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller declining leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the respondent under the provisions of Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The case set up by the respondent was that he and his wife are aged persons

and they need their married daughter, who is their only the child, to live with them to look after them in their old age. It is alleged that the petitioner is suffering from back pain and his wife is suffering from hypertension and high blood pressure.

3. The learned Additional Rent Controller was of the view that the respondent was entitled to have his married daughter live with him to look after the respondent and his wife in their old age. Reliance was also placed by the learned Additional Rent Controller on certain medical certificates which were considered while arriving at his conclusion that the petitioner's application for leave to defend requires to be dismissed.

4. While this is a matter of ones subjective opinion, I am of the view that the respondent and his wife, who are said to be about 60 years of age can hardly be described as "aged persons". Moreover, the medical records that have been filed by the respondent are all of a period subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition.

5. I am of the view that it is necessary for the learned Additional Rent Controller to determine whether the ailments of the respondent and his wife are such that they cannot look after themselves and they need somebody to live with them virtually for all times to come. This determination can be made only after evidence is led by the parties.

6. Learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon Silvertoe Mfg. Co. of India and Anr. v. Smt. Usha Soi, . This case pertains to persons who were aged about 75-80 years. Such elderly persons can surely be described as "aged persons" who would, perhaps, require looking after, I am of the view that this case does not advance the cause of the respondent.

7. Reliance is also placed on Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., , particularly paragraph 14 thereof to contend that it is for the landlord to decide his own needs. There is no dispute about this proposition, as indeed there cannot be.

8. However, what is to be determined is whether the need of the respondent is bona fide or not. Considering the facts of this case, I am of the view that the learned Additional Rent Controller ought to have granted leave to the petitioner to contest the eviction petition.

9. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and leave to defend is granted to the petitioner. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he will file the written statement within two weeks from today.

10. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that since the filing of the eviction petition, no rent has been paid by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he will pay the arrears of rent before filing the written statement. The written statement be taken on record only after the petitioner pays the arrears of rent to the respondent.

11. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Rent Controller on 9th May, 2000.

12. The petition is allowed in the above terms.