Madhu Singh vs Chander Prakash Gulati
2004 Latest Caselaw 944 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 9th July, 2002, of the Additional Rent Controller (for short the "Controller") in Petition No. E 288/2000, whereby the learned Controller has allowed the petition of the respondent under Sections 14(1)(e) and 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

2. The brief facts of this case, as has been noted by the learned Controller, are as under :

"Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case, as stated by the original petitioner Nirmal Gulati are that the tenant is a tenant in respect of tenanted premises comprising of three rooms, kitchen, bathroom and latrine on the ground floor of the property bearing No.S-57A, Sunder Block, Shakarpur, Delhi as shown in the site plan in red colour attached with the petition, at a monthly rent of Rs.1,700/- excluding electricity and water charges. Petitioner further stated that respondent was inducted as tenant ten years ago from the date of filing of present petition, in respect of tenanted premises only for residential purpose only but no written agreement was executed between the parties. Petitioner further stated that she is an old lady aged about 60 years as such she is not in a position to climb up the stairs due to the amputation of her right leg below knee which occurred in the month of November'95 at the Mool Chand Hospital. Petitioner further stated that she requires the tenanted premises bona fide for the purpose of her residence. Petitioner further stated that it is very difficult for her to reside in the accommodation at present in her possession, and further she does not have any other suitable alternate residential accommodation in Delhi except the tenanted premises. Petitioner further stated that at present she is in possession of two rooms, kitchen, latrine and bathroom situated on the 2nd floor and the same is a rented accommodation. Petitioner further stated that she got two married daughters and one son while one eldest daughter and her daughter aged 10 years are also residing with her permanently. Petitioner further stated that no relative can reside in the night with her due to shortage of accommodation. Petitioner further stated that her husband (present petitioner) is retired from the Ministry of External Affairs and due to these circumstances, she requires the tenanted premises bona fide for the purpose of residence. Petitioner further stated that respondent neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent since December'96 at the rate of Rs.1700/- p.m. uptil date despite the demand notice. Hence, the present petition.

3. Petitioner Nirmal Gulati died during the pendency of the case and vide order dated 14.7.99, C.P.Gulati i.e. present petitioner was imp leaded as necessary party in her place.

4. Vide order dated 30.9.98 my learned predecessor also observed that the petitioner filed the present petition U/s 14(1)(a) and (e) of DRC Act and due to this reason case was fixed for filing of written statement and impliedly the respondent was allowed to contest the present petition.

5. Respondent filed written statement whereby contested the present petition on the ground that the present petition is not maintainable under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act as the petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises. Respondent further stated that the tenanted premises were let out in the month of September 1988 by landlord Surinder Gulati who is residing at Mayur Vihar and said Surinder Gulati at the time of letting out the premises told the respondent that he is the owner of the tenanted premises. Respondent further stated that rate of rent was Rs.1200/- which later on enhanced to Rs.1700/- p.m. including the electricity and water charges. Respondent further stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.37342/- as arrears of electricity charges on behalf of petitioner and said charges/amount were liable to be adjusted towards future rent. Respondent further stated that the petitioner is having one flat bearing NO.107, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and as such got sufficient accommodation for the purpose of residence for herself as well as for other family members. Respondent further stated that petitioner is also having other premises situated at Pandav Nagar, Master Block, Shakarpur, Delhi. Respondent also stated that premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose and further no demand notice has ever been served upon him. Respondent also controverter other allegations of the petitioner.

6. Petitioner filed replication wherein reasserted and reaffirmed the previous stand and denied the pleas taken by the respondent in the written statement.

7. Vide order dated 11.1.99 the respondent was directed to pay or deposit the entire arrears of rent w.e.f. December 1996 at the rate of Rs.1700/- p.m. and was also directed to pay the future rent month by month at the said rate of rent, as provided U/s 15(1) DRC Act.

8. Present petitioner C.P.Gulati examined himself as PW1 and proved on record site plan as Ex.PW1/A, carbon copy of demand notice as Ex.PW1/B, the envelop as Ex.PW1/C, AD Card as Ex.PW1/F and postal receipt as Ex.PW1/E. Respondent examined himself as RW1 and Mangat Rai Jain as RW2."

3. The learned Controller on the basis of the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the landlord has been able to establish its case under Section 14(1)(e) as also under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. As regards findings under Section 14(1)(e), a decree of eviction was passed, while under Section 14(1)(a), the tenant was given the benefit of Section 14(1)(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-landlord has alternative accommodation inasmuch as he is the owner of House No. 107, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi and is also having a flat with Shahdara Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. I find that except for bald assertion that the landlord owns alternative accommodation, there is no evidence on record to show that the landlord actually owns alternative accommodation. On the contrary, the landlord has denied such an accommodation and therefore on account of the lack of evidence, this plea of the tenant was rejected by the Controller. Having carefully gone through the judgment under challenge, I am of the view that the same suffers from no infirmity, perversity, impropriety, illegality or jurisdictional error. CR 1372/2002 is dismissed. CM 2890/2002 also stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.