Laxmi Narain vs Bhagwanti
2011 Latest Caselaw 4224 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                            RCR NO. 48/2009


+                                          Date of Decision: 30th August, 2011

#      LAXMI NARAIN                                             ...Petitioner
!                                 Through: Mr.Mir Akhtar Hussain, Advocate

                                      Versus

$     BHAGWANTI                                                  ....Respondent
                                               Through: Mr. Anil Goel, Advocate


       CORAM:
*      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
       to see the judgment? (No)
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No)


                               ORDER

P.K BHASIN,J:

This is a revision petition under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control

Act, 1958 against the order dated 25.05.2009 passed by learned Additional Rent

Controller dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-tenant seeking leave

to defend the eviction petition filed by his landlady, respondent herein, in respect

of one room on the ground floor of premises bearing no. 2937, Arya Nagar,

Subzi Mandi, Delhi under Section 14(1)(e). As a result of dismissal of the leave

application eviction order has been passed against the petitioner-tenant.

2. The respondent-landlady, who has died after filing of the present petition

and is now being represented by her legal representatives, had sought eviction of

the petitioner on the ground that she required the premises under the tenancy of

the petitioner for herself and her four sons and their families out whom two sons

were living separately as they could not be accommodated in property no. 2937

due to shortage of space there. She also pleaded that earlier there were seven

tenants in all in her house, including the petitioner herein, and out of them six

had been got evicted and now the petitioner herein was the only tenant who

remained to be evicted. It was her further case that as she herself was not in a

condition to climb stairs because of her old age she was living with one of her

four sons Bhimsen in Vikaspuri but that son had got transferred to Hyderabad

and so she wanted to shift to her house and to live with her children but there

was no other room available for her on the ground floor in house no.2937. It was

also her case that on the ground floor of said the property there were six rooms

in all, including the one under the tenancy of the petitioner herein, and out of five

rooms one was not worth living because the same was filled with waste wooden

furniture etc. of her two sons who were not living in the said house due to

shortage of space, the second room was kept for the guests of the family, third

room was pooja room , the fourth room was used by her son Dharam Veer for

storing his house-hold goods and the fifth room was used by another son Om

Prakash Narang who was not having good health and was suffering from

hypertension and breathing problems. It was also the landlady's case that on the

first floor she had eight rooms but those rooms were already occupied by the

families of her two sons Om Parkash and Dharam Vir and in any case those

rooms were not useful for her as she was unable to climb stairs and she required

ground floor accommodation.

3. The petitioner-tenant in his affidavit filed before the trial Court seeking

leave to defend the eviction petition claimed that his landlady herself was not

living in the house in question but was living in another house in Vikaspuri with

one of her four sons. The first floor of the house in question was in occupation

of her other two sons, namely, Sh. Om Prakash and Sh. Dharm Vir and their

families and on the ground floor four rooms were lying vacant and in two rooms

her son Dharam Vir was running his business and so she did not require the

room in question under his tenancy.

4. The learned Additional Rent Controller declined leave to the petitioner-

tenant to contest the eviction petition. While rejecting the petitioner's pleas

which according to him gave rise to several triable issues the learned Additional

Rent Controller gave his findings in para nos. 12 to 14 of the impugned order

and those paragraphs are re-produced below:-

12) Having heard the submissions of the respondent, I observe that the respondent himself is unclear about the occupancy and possession of the petitioner and her family members in the entire property. On the one side, he is claiming that the ground floor of the aforesaid property is lying vacant and on the other side, he is stating that two rooms on the ground floor are occupied by son of the petitioner, Dharamveer Narang for running his business of Saree falls. Also, the respondent has stated that the entire property is in occupation and possession of the two sons of the petitioner except the tenanted premises. It is apparent that the respondent has no definite stand with regard to the occupancy of the petitioner or her family members in the suit premises. Even otherwise, if the plea of the respondent with regard to sixteen rooms is presumed to be correct then also I feel that bona fide requirement of the petitioner still exists. The old age of eighty years of the petitioner and composition of her family has not been disputed by the respondent meaning thereby there are three couples viz. Sh. Om Prakash Narang, Sh. Dharamveer Narang and Sh. Kamal Narang already residing in the suit premises and require at least three separate bed rooms for themselves. Similarly, they also require three separate guest rooms as it is a settled preposition of law that every married son requires a separate guest room. Further, three sons and one daughter of the petitioner's sons viz. Sh. Bhisham Narang, Sh. Lokesh Narang and Sh. Gulshan Narang and Ms. Kavita admittedly are of the marriageable ages of 27, 25, 28 and 23 years respectively and are to be married soon. Intrinsically, three sons of the petitioner of marriageable ages would also require three separate bed-rooms along with three guests rooms. Anyhow, presently the four individual adults require at least four separate rooms for them. Now, since, the petitioner is an old lady of above eighty years of age, she has shown her bona fide requirement of one room on the ground floor on the premises that she cannot climb on the stairs to reach the second floor. School going adolescent girls also require their separate study rooms. Four individuals adults and two young girls of fourteen years and twelve years respectively are admittedly living in the aforesaid property. The size of the family of the petitioner is so large that

they at least require one drawing room and one dining room for the entire family. They also require at least one pooja room which makes their bona fide requirement to be a bare minimum of 16 habitable rooms apart from kitchens, latrines, bath rooms and stores. Apart from this, the respondent himself submitted that Sh. Dharambir Narang, son of the petitioner is running his business of saree falls on the ground floor and therefore is using two rooms on the ground floor shown at point 'A' and point 'B'.

13) In the light of the above discussion, I observe that the petitioner has already shortage of accommodation in the property and she has bona fide need for one room on the ground floor to stay peacefully in her own residential accommodation.

14) Further, the respondent alleged that two other sons of the petitioner are residing at different places of Dwarka and Vikaspuri respectively and the petitioner is residing with her son namely Bhimsen at Vikaspuri where she is living a luxurious and comfortable life without any tension. Here, admittedly her son Bhimsen has been transferred to Hyderabad and his family has already shifted to Hyderabad. Further, as per the petitioner, since the said accommodation of Vikaspuri area is on the ground floor and she had gone there to stay only because of her deteriorating health and now, it has become very difficult for her to stay all alone in the absence of his son or other family members............"

5. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner had approached this Court by filing this

revision petition but after filing this revision petition he was evicted through

execution proceedings. However, the counsel of the petitioner had pressed for

hearing of the revision petition in the hope that if he succeeds then petitioner

might get back the possession of the tenanted premises.

6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that he

had raised many triable issues including the most vital one regarding the number

of rooms on the ground floor in his affidavit seeking leave to defend the eviction

but the learned trial Court has committed material irregularity while coming to

the conclusion that no triable issue had been raised by him. Learned counsel for

the respondents, on the other hand supported the impugned order and prayed for

the dismissal of this revision petition.

7. As noticed already, it was the deceased landlady's case that she had in her

possession five rooms on the ground floor and eight on the first floor. As far as

the accommodation on the first floor is concerned there was no dispute between

the parties and according to the both the parties there are eight rooms. The total

family members of her two sons living in the property no. 2937 were twelve

including one married grandson of the deceased landlady and his wife and that is

why the learned trial Court has observed that three married couples in the family

of the deceased were living on the first floor of the property in question. This

factual position has not been in dispute either before the trial Court or before this

Court from the side of the petitioner - tenant. The landlady had annexed with the

eviction petition a plan which shows that there were five rooms on the ground

floor in addition to the room in the possession of the petitioner-tenant. The plan

filed by the petitioner-tenant in respect of the ground floor is a photocopy of the

plan filed by the landlady and that also shows the same accommodation in

possession of the landlady as is shown in her plan. Therefore, the petitioner's

plea taken for getting leave to defend to the effect that his landlady was having

eight rooms on the ground floor gets falsified from his own plan of the ground

floor. The petitioner-tenant has attempted to project that in some rooms there

were some kind of partitions raised for making two rooms of one room. But even

then the petitioner cannot derive any benefit considering the large number of

members of the family of the deceased landlady. If the deceased landlady in

order to live with her sons had made some kind of temporary arrangements in

the existing rooms that would not show that her requirement stood satisfied, as

was the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and

particularly when it is not the case of the petitioner that the deceased landlady's

family was not joint or that her two sons who were living there were not

dependant on her for residence. Thus, the position which emerges out is that the

accommodation available with the deceased landlady and the families of her two

sons who were already living in the property in question comprised of eight

rooms on the first floor, out of which two rooms ,according to the landlady,had

been recently constructed to be used as study rooms for grandchildren. On the

ground floor, she had five rooms out of which two were, even according to the

case of the petitioner - tenant , being used by one of the sons of deceased

landlady for carrying on his business. In these circumstances, no fault can be

found with the decision of the learned Additional Rent Controller to the effect

that the petitioner - tenant had failed to make out any case entitling him to get

leave to defend the eviction petition and that the requirement of the deceased

landlady in respect of the tenanted premises in the possession of the petitioner -

tenant was very much bona fide. This Court fully endorses the said decision of

the trial Court and finds no reason whatsoever to interfere in that decision in

exercise of revisional jurisdiction despite the fact that now the landlady has died.

8. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

P.K. BHASIN,J

AUGUST 30, 2011 sh