Saroj Awasthi vs Kailash Wati & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5039 Del

*                  THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          RC REV. 426/2012

                                             Date of Decision: 27.08.2012

SAROJ AWASTHI                                          ...... Petitioner
                           Through:     Mr.Jaspreet Singh, Adv. with
                                        Mr.Manish Pathak, Mr.Sanjib
                                        Dutta, Adv.

                                    Versus

KAILASH WATI & ANR.                                   ...... Respondents
                 Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 21.02.2012 of the Addl. Rent Controller (ARC), whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, who was the tenant in the eviction petition, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of the tenanted premises being 687, Pocket-1, Paschim Puri, Delhi (the tenanted premises). Her eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the respondents. The petitioner filed leave to

defend application, which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order. The same has been challenged in the instant revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records. The submissions which have been made before me are the same which were made before the learned ARC. These are to the effect that the respondents are not the owners/landlords of the tenanted premises and, that they being in possession of sufficient accommodation in property No. 71-72, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi, do not require the tenanted premises.

4. With regard to ownership of the tenanted premises, the respondents' case was that Kailash Wati, the respondent no. 1 herein had purchased the property vide documents such as GPA, Agreement, Will etc. There was also no dispute that the rent was deposited by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Act in the name of her husband Rajender Ram (respondent No. 2 herein). It is nowhere alleged by the petitioner that anyone else, other than the respondents, had ever claimed rent from her. It is settled law that the absolute ownership of the tenanted premises was not required to be proved in the case of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, and that tenant was not entitled to challenge the ownership of the landlord. There being no substance in this contention, the same is rejected.

5. There is no dispute that the family of the respondents comprised of the couple as also their six grown up children aged between 11 to 21 years, and that they all are residing in the premises being 71-72, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi. It is undisputed that the size of the plots i.e. 71- 72, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi was 12.5 sq.yds each. The respondents' case is that these premises are owned by the brother of Rajender Ram and one Janai Ram respectively. It is also undisputed that these premises had only two rooms of the size of 7 x 10 feet each on the ground floors. According to the respondents and which is not disputed that they are in possession of only one room each on the ground floor of this premises with the permission of the brother of Rajender Ram (respondent No. 2 herein) and, that of Janai Ram; and further, that the size of those rooms is 7 x 10 feet each. The petitioner could not place anything on record to controvert these assertions of the respondents. Thus, there is no reason to doubt that the respondents are in possession of only one room of the size of 7 x 10 feet each on the ground floor of premises being 71-72, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi. Further, it is also not in dispute that Raghubir Nagar, Delhi is a rehabilitation colony and is declared slum area, whereas the tenanted premises is in Paschim Puri, which is a residential colony. It was rightly observed by the ARC that even if it is assumed that the respondents are the owners of property 71-72, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi, still it is their own choice to live in a better colony than in the slum area and the tenant could not dictate his terms upon them. Having regard to the fact that the family of the respondents comprised of self and six grown up children, the need of the tenanted premises by the

respondents for residence, seems to be not only bona fide, but just and reasonable.

6. In view of my above discussion, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of dismissal of the leave to defend application. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

AUGUST 27, 2012/akb