M.S. Rehi vs Mohinder Kaur @ Daman And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 646 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 14.11.2002 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, in E-104/2001 whereby the Additional Rent Controller, while adjudicating on an application for leave to defend a petition filed by the widow-landlady under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (for short 'the Act') declined permission and ordered eviction.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the Additional Rent Controller, are that-

"the landlady in her petition u/s 14-D of DRC Act submitted inter alia that premises of first and second floor of property no. D-64, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi specifically shown red in the site plan was let out to the respondent several years ago by the husband of the landlady on a monthly rent of Rs.1172/- excluding electricity and water charges for residential purposes and the same is being occupied by the family of the respondent as residence.

The landlady also submitted that she is the owner of the premises and aged about 67 years and her husband Sardar Swaran Singh Daman died on 9.4.1984 and after the death of her husband property stands mutated in her name in the records of MCD and she is making regular payments of house tax etc. She also submitted that respondent in his letter dated 25.5.94 admitted that the landlady is his landlord.

The landlady also submitted that she has been residing in U.K. For several years on account of her husband's business in U.K. She also submitted that she is very religious and Indian by nature despite her long residence in U.K. and she has retained her Indian citizenship and continued visiting India regularly and her last visit was in the month of January/February, 2001. She also submitted that in view of her old age and frail health she has decided to return to her native country and to spend the remaining years of her life in her own house and in her own country. Furthermore in U.K. there is cold, damp and also not conjenial atmosphere to her in her old age. Her children are settled in U.K. but she does not want to be at the mercy of them as she wants to live with dignity in the last fag years of her life. She also submitted that first and second floor of the property in dispute are bona fide required by her for her own residence as for reasons of security and convenience she wants to occupy the first and second floor of the premises. She also submitted that second floor has built only a barsati portion. She also submitted that she requires one drawing room, one dining, four bed rooms, one for self, one for visiting sons and daughters, one for maid servant and one for pooja. She also requires kitchen and bathroom. On these grounds she sought eviction of the tenanted premises from the respondent."

3. Counsel for the tenant, petitioner herein, contended that the need of the landlady-respondent is not bona fide and that the only intention is to raise rent and/or sell the property. The petition for eviction, according to the tenant, is mala fide.

4. The Additional Rent Controller, after formulating the questions that needed adjudication returned a finding that no bona fide friable issue had been raised and, therefore, dismissed the application for leave to defend.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the judgment under challenge. It appears to me that the Additional Rent controller has given a detailed and reasoned order which need not be interfered with. In the event the landlady leases out the premises and/or sells the same, there are sufficient safeguards under the Act available to the tenant to seek possession. It is incorrect to suggest that the widow landlady who is nearly 70 years of age would not like to come to India but would prefer the comfort of her children in the United Kingdom. It is not for the tenant to advise or direct the landlady how she should lead her life. If she bona fide wishes to come to India for which she needs her premises as her residence, the same should not be denied to her.

6. In this view of the matter, I find no infirmity, illegality, impropriety and/or jurisdictional error in the judgment under challenge. RC-REV. 1313 of 2002 and C.M. Appl. 2763 of 2002 are dismissed. No order as to costs.