Shri Nand Lal vs Smt. Mundras Devi
2008 Latest Caselaw 288 Del

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J.

CM No. 2232/2008

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

RC.R. No. 11/2008 & CM No. 2231/2008

1. This petition has been filed to challenge the order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E-315/07/2000 filed by the respondent against the petitioner whereby the aforesaid eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (the Act) has been allowed and an eviction order has been passed against the petitioner-tenant from the suit property, that is, first floor of property No. 1205, Gali Samosan, Farash Khana, Delhi-11006. Admittedly the respondent is the owner and landlady of the aforesaid premises, wherein, the petitioner is a tenant. The family of the respondent admittedly consists of herself, her husband, three married sons with their wives and five grand children. There is one married daughter living in the same area. The petitioner-tenant raised various submissions. Firstly, it was contended that the purpose of letting was not merely residential but residential-cum-commercial. For this purpose the petitioner desired to rely on a document stated to be a rent agreement executed between the parties on 15.9.1985. This document was disputed by the respondent landlady. The petitioner sought, and was granted, permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the said document. Admittedly no secondary evidence was led to prove this document. In fact, the right of the petitioner to lead any other evidence apart from producing himself as a witness was closed by the learned ARC and that order was challenged before this Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which also came to be dismissed. On the other hand, the respondent landlady produced various counterfoils of rent receipts according to which the purpose of letting was residential. In this background, in my view the learned ARC has rightly concluded that the purpose of letting was residential and not residential-cum-commercial as pleaded by the petitioner.

2. The next submission of the petitioner was that the accommodation already available with the respondent was sufficient to meet her bona fide needs, particularly taking into account the fact that two other tenants had also been evicted by the respondent in the meantime. I find that the learned ARC has taken note of the fact that two other tenants have been evicted who had in their occupation, one room each. To assess the requirement of the respondent, the learned ARC proceeded on the basis of the plan filed by the petitioner. Even if the plan as filed by the petitioner, is taken to be the correct one, and even if the accommodation that become available to the respondent upon eviction of two other tenants is taken into account, the number of rooms available to the respondent-landlady would, at best be six, whereas the learned ARC has computed the reasonable requirement of the respondent and her family as eight rooms. The relevant extract from the order of the ARC reads as follows:

11. Now, let us peruse the site plan relied upon by both the parties. To cut short the controversy, i have perused the site plan filed by the respondent. The same is exactly similar to that of petitioner except of the fact that on the ground floor, the respondent has shown a room measuring 9 X 13.7 sq. feet on the southern side of the property which has been shown as a veranda by the petitioner in his site plan. If the same is considered with a site plan annexed with the sale deed i.e. Ex.A-2/Y. It shows that on the ground floor, there is only Varanda and not a room as alleged by the respondent. Further, to cut short the controversy, even if the site plan filed by the respondent is taken to be correct, the same does not provide sufficient accommodation with the petitioner. It is not only on the counting of the rooms which has to be considered, the court has to see whether the room is habitable or not or has a separate entrance or not. It is settled proposition of law as well as provided by Delhi Building By Laws that a room of less than 100 sq. feet and a room not having a separate entrance cannot be considered to be a single habitable room. As per the site plan filed by the respondent, there are only three rooms which are more than of the size of 100 sq.feet and for that matter, can be said to be a living room. The other room are only 9 x 6 i.e. 54 sq. feet, 6 x 7 i.e. 42 sq. feet, 9 x 7 i.e. 63 sq. feet. So, none of these rooms can be said to be habitable rooms. Reliance can be placed upon vide judgment reported in case titled as "Uttam Chand v. Ram Murti 410 All India Rent Control Tribunal 1980(2)".

12. Otherwise also, the rooms shown on the ground floor measuring 6 x 7 sq. feet and 9 x 7 sq feet have no separate entrance and cannot be said to be a available independently to the couples as per law. Under these circumstances, even if the site plan of the respondent is considered to be correct, only 3 rooms are available with the petitioner which are highly insufficient for the family consists of four couples five growing children and one married daughter who generally visits her mother.

3. I find that the analysis of the ARC with regard to the requirement of the respondent and the availability of accommodation available with her is perfectly reasonable and does not call for interference. The learned ARC has applied well established and recognized principles in the aforesaid computation.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that the manner in which the needs of the respondent and her family have been computed is incorrect, since the premises is situated in a slum area and the requirements of the family and standard of living in a slum area is much lower compared to any other locality or a posh colony. He submits that in slum areas the residents do not require as much accommodation and their needs are not of the same kind as those of others living in posh areas. It is argued that the respondent is only running a golgappa stall.

5. I do not find any force in the submission of the petitioner. Merely because the premises are situated in a slum area, it is does not mean that the landlady and her family members are not entitled to live with reasonable comforts. It is the right of every person to try and raise his standard of living and the petitioner/tenant cannot grudge the same. Rich or poor, the requirements of the landlord and her family for accommodation has to be considered on the well known and well established principles. As aforesaid, the exercise has correctly been done by the learned ARC.

6. It is next contended that the respondent-landlady had not appeared as a witness and her son had appeared and deposed in the matter. I find that the son had deposed that the landlady was not keeping good health. Apart from that, it was not necessary that the landlady should have appeared as her own witness, since the purpose of producing witnesses is to prove ones own case and any person who has personal knowledge of the facts could appear as a witness on behalf of the landlady. Her son, who is living with her has the requisite knowledge and it is not the petitioners case that in the cross-examination of the son, the petitioner has been able to establish the lack of the personal knowledge of this witness.

7. In view of the aforesaid I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed.