Delhi High Court
Sh.Pradeep Kumar Khaneja vs Smt.Jagrani on 24 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.Rev. No. 503/2012 & CM Nos. 17389/12 & 2460/13 (Stay)
% 24th September, 2014
SH.PRADEEP KUMAR KHANEJA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K.Tewari, Mr. Y.R.Sharma ,
Advocates.
VERSUS
SMT.JAGRANI ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Tyagi,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this petition under Section 25-B(8)
of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is
to the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 31.3.2012 by which
the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application
filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the eviction petition for
bonafide necessity filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act by the
respondent/landlady for the tenanted premises being a room on the ground
RCR 503/2012 Page 1 of 5
floor of the property bearing no.9530, Gali Mil Wali, Azad Market, Delhi-
110006.
2. The case of the respondent/landlady, and who was 75 years of
age when the eviction petition was filed and is now about 80 years, was that
due to her old age she cannot climb to the first floor of the property where
she is presently residing and therefore she needs the property for her
bonafide need. Respondent-landlady also pleads that her brother-in-law's
family is living with her. In my opinion, however, the only issue is as to
whether respondent/landlady is entitled to shift to the ground floor in view
of her old age and which is presently 80 years as stated above.
3. The Additional Rent Controller has decreed the bonafide
necessity eviction petition on the ground that the respondent/landlady who is
an aged person of 75 years, cannot be forced to climb to the first floor and
therefore she has a bonafide necessity for the room on the ground floor
which is with the petitioner/tenant.
4. Before me, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant argues the
following aspects for setting aside of the impugned judgment:-.
RCR 503/2012 Page 2 of 5
(i) The respondent/landlady has already filed another eviction petition for
bonafide necessity in which leave to defend has been granted and
consequently, leave to defend should also be granted in the present case.
(ii) The respondent/landlady has sufficient accommodation on the first
floor and above of the tenanted premises and therefore, she has no bonafide
need. It is further argued that the respondent/landlady has a room of the size
of 11.3' ft.x 5.6' ft. on the ground floor and which is therefore sufficient to
meet her requirement for the ground floor.
(iii) Since the respondent/landlady is surviving on rent, if the
petitioner/tenant vacates the tenanted premises, the respondent/landlady will
be deprived of rent and therefore showing that the need is not bonafide.
5. All the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner/tenant do
not carry any weight. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and
reasons are given hereinafter.
6. Firstly, the room which is available on the ground floor is
merely of the size of 11.3' ft.x 5.6' ft. and it is settled law in view of the
innumerable judgments passed by this Court that no room can be used as a
bedroom unless it is of at least 100 sq. ft., and in fact a room can be used as a
RCR 503/2012 Page 3 of 5
bedroom only if the said room can be a bedroom as per the size of 100 sq. ft.
as per the Municipal By-laws. Therefore, the room of just about 55-60 sq.
ft. on the ground floor cannot be said to be suitable alternative
accommodation for being used as a bedroom by the respondent/landlady.
7. As regards the argument that the petitioner/tenant has been
granted leave to defend in another bonafide necessity eviction petition filed
by the respondent/landlady against the present petitioner/tenant it is to be
noted that the judgment which is relied upon is not of this Court but of the
Additional Rent Controller. In any case, in my opinion, the change of age
and respondent/landlady being presently about 80 years of age, gives a
further/fresh cause of action to file the present bonafide necessity eviction
petition. Also, I am not bound by the judgment of the Additional Rent
Controller granting leave to defend in an earlier petition, and I am of the
opinion that advanced age in itself, and that too of about 80 years, is
sufficient without any medical problem being shown, for the
respondent/landlady to live on the ground floor of the suit premises.
8 The third and final argument which is raised by the
petitioner/tenant is that the petitioner is paying rent and if petitioner/tenant
vacates the suit premises respondent/landlady will be deprived of the said
RCR 503/2012 Page 4 of 5
rent and therefore the need is not bonafide. In my opinion the argument
urged is a very shallow argument to say the least because surely 'princely'
amount of Rs.500/- as rent cannot be said to be such a financial amount
which the respondent/landlady if deprived, she would have no bonafide
need. I may only note that the respondent/landlady has already stated in the
eviction petition that the second floor of the premises are with three other
tenants and who are paying rent to the respondent/landlady and from which
rented amount the respondent/landlady is able to make her ends meet.
9. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the
same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
