Delhi High Court
Maya Devi vs Ashok Kumar on 14 December, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ R.C.REV. 584/2012
Date of Decision: 14.12.2012
MAYA DEVI ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Sukhija, Advocate.
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR ...... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
CM 20761/2012 (Early hearing)
This is an application for early hearing for the matter.
Heard. In view of the submissions made therein, the application
is allowed and the matter is being taken up today itself for hearing.
CM stands disposed of.
R.C.Rev. 584/2012
1. This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act (for short the 'Act') is directed against the order dated
23.12.2011 of Administrative Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Rent Controller
(ARC), North East, whereby the eviction petition filed by the
respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act, was allowed, as also the
order dated 25.09.2012 whereby the applications seeking review of the
order of 23.12.2011 and for condonation of delay & stay of the
execution order, were dismissed.
2. The petitioner is a tenant in a portion of the property bearing No.
F-6/8A, Krishna Nagar, Delhi under the respondent for residential
purpose. Her eviction was sought from the tenanted premises on the
ground of bona fide requirement thereof by the respondent for himself
and his family members dependent upon him. After the leave to
defend was granted to the petitioner, the petition was put on trial. Both
the parties led their respective evidence. The learned ARC vide the
impugned judgment dated 23.12.2011 held the respondent to be
entitled to seek eviction of the petitioner and, he consequently passed
the eviction order against her. Thereafter, the respondent filed the
execution of the eviction order, to which, the petitioner filed objections
and she also filed an application under Section 25(9) of the Act read
with Section 47 CPC along with the application for condonation of
delay seeking review of the aforesaid eviction order. All these came to
be dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2012. Both these orders of ARC
are under challenge in the instant petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned
order only on the ground that the respondent has various other suitable
and alternative accommodations/properties, details of which are under:
(a) Flat No. 63, Plot No. 78, Meena Apartments, I.P.
Extension, Patparganj;
(b)Two flats at Shivam Enclave out of one property
bearing No. 12-C, MIG Flats, Shivam Enclave, Jhilmil
Colony;
(c) Premises bearing No. 9/4779, Old Seelampur Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi &
(d) Property bearing No. 1780, Kucha Lattu Shah,
Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk.
It was thus submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
respondent did not require the suit premises bonafidely.
4. The plea of the respondent, on the other hand, was that he is in
possession of only one room, one kitchen, common toilet and
bathroom and his family consists of himself and his wife. He also has
one married son, and two married daughters, who generally visit and
stay with him. It was also his case that he was a social person and well
connected. As regard to the plea of the petitioner relating to other
properties available with the respondent, it was his submission that the
premises being flat No. 12-C, MIG Flat, Shivam Enclave, Jhilmil
Colony was the property of his younger brother's wife. He further
denied that he is the owner of premises No. 9/4779, Old Seelampur,
Gandhi Nagar. With regard to the flat at Meena Apartments, he
submitted that this was in occupation of his son and his wife and
grandsons. With regard to the premises No. 1780, Kucha Lattu Shah,
his plea was that his father was owner of only three rooms in this
property and the petitioner had only one-eight undivided share in three
rooms, and none of these rooms were in his possession or occupation.
One of these rooms was stated to be in possession of younger brother
and other two rooms not being used due to dispute of shareholders. It
was submitted that only old furniture was lying therein.
5. From the evidence that was led by the respondent and which is
not controverted, it was recorded as a finding of fact by the learned
ARC that the present accommodation available with the respondent in
F-6/8A, Krishna Nagar, Delhi comprised of only one room and that his
requirement for attending visitors or for his son and daughters, could
not be said to be lacking bona fide. This is admitted fact that the
respondent is living with his family in the portion adjacent to the
tenanted premises. The requirement that has been projected by the
respondent is of the tenanted premises, which is in the same premises
where he has been living with his family and thus, this would be more
convenient and suitable for him than the accommodation, if any,
available with him in Kucha Lattu Shah. It is settled proposition of
law that the suitability of alternative accommodation has to be
examined from the view point of the landlord as compared to the
premises sought to be evicted.
6. In view of my above discussion, I do not see any infirmity or
illegality in the impugned orders of ARC, whereby the eviction order
was passed in favour for the respondent, and consequently, dismissing
the review application. The petition has no merit and is hereby
dismissed in limine.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
DECEMBER 14, 2012
akb
