Delhi High Court
K V R Murthy vs Dharamwati Devi on 15 April, 2015
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 171/2015
% Decided on: 15th April, 2015
K V R MURTHY ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Praveen Chauhan with Mr. Yash
Prakash, Advs.
versus
DHARAMWATI DEVI ..... Respondent
Through None.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
CM No.6729/2015 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
RC.REV.171/2015 & CM 6728/2015 (stay)
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22nd November, 2014 whereby leave to
defend was declined to the petitioner K.V.R. Murthy who was a tenant of
Smt. Dharamwati Devi, landlord in an eviction petition under Section
14(1)(e) DRC Act, the petitioner prefers the present petition.
2. In the eviction petition Smt. Dharamwati Devi stated that she was
landlord and owner of the tenanted premises which was a shop in the suit
property No.D-14, Mohan Singh Market, Sector-6, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
The shop was initially owned by her father Shri Rameshwar Parsad. On the
death of Shri Rameshwar Prasad, the same devolved on his wife late Smt.
Ramwati who continued to carry on the business with the help of her son-in-
law late Shri Ram Bharose Lal Gupta. Smt. Dharamwati was the sole
surviving legal heir of Ramwati and hence owner of the premises. A civil
suit bearing No.318/2001 was filed by K.V.R. Murthy against Ramwati and
husband of Dharamwati claiming himself to be a tenant since 1995 on a
monthly rent of Rs.2000/- which was disposed off in view of statement
Ramwati and Ram Bharose without prejudice to their rights and contentions
that they will not dispossess K.V.R. Murthy except by due process of law.
Smt. Ramwati and Ram Bharose had also filed a civil suit against K.V.R.
Murthy seeking mandatory and permanent injunction on 11th May, 2001
wherein Dharamwati was substituted as legal heir of Ramwati. However,
the said proceedings were finally withdrawn after Dharamwati accepted that
K.V.R. Murthy was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.2000/-.
3. According to Dharamwati she needed the premises as she had no
source of income. She has two daughters namely Kusum and Suman. Her
elder daughter Kusum and her husband with two children were staying with
Dharamwati at Laxmi Nagar in her residential property. The husband of
Kusum was unemployed and having no source of income and hence she
needed the tenanted premises to rehabilitate her elder daughter Kusum and
her son-in-law. It is stated that rehabilitation of Kusum and her husband are
not only necessary for providing source of sustenance of their family but also
to generate resources for the future of two grandchildren, their studies and
marriage of granddaughter. She further stated that she has no other
reasonable suitable accommodation to rehabilitate Kusum and her son-in-
law. Property No.87/88, J&K Block, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi where
Dharamwati was residing was a residential premises.
4. In the leave to defend application, K.V.R.Murthy though challenged
the ownership of Dharamwati, stating that open platform measuring 8'X
10'was allotted to Rameshwar Parsad. He constructed a temporary shed. A
sum of Rs.2000/- has been paid as mesne profits to Dharamwati by
depositing the same in her account. Dharamwati had sufficient income to
maintain herself and her son-in-law was doing a private job. He was running
a tea stall on Barakhamba Road and working in a private company.
5. Learned ARC vide the impugned order held that K.V.R. Murthy has
not disputed the fact that married daughter of Dharamwati with her family
was living with Dharamwati nor the composition of family was denied. The
bona fide requirement is refuted on the ground that Dharamwati is earning
handsomely and even her son-in-law is working in a private job. The said
two averments do not raise any triable issue.
6. Before this Court, learned counsel for the K.V.R. Murthy only urges
that in the eviction petition it is nowhere stated that the son in law of
Dharamwati was dependent on him. In the eviction petition it is stated that
Narender Kumar Gupta the son-in-law of Dharamwati is a man of ordinary
means and having no property owned and possessed by him and thus
Dharamwati was burdened with the responsibility of housing her son-in-law
and her daughter and their children in her residential premises and to ensure
their rehabilitation. The shop in question was required to provide sustenance
for Dharamwati as well as her daughter and son-in-law. Thus, even if the
words "dependent on the landlord" are not used the meaning conveyed by
the words as stated above are clear and Dharamwati has stated that her
daughter and son-in-law were dependent on her not only for residential
accommodation but also for financial sustenance.
7. Consequently, I find no merit in the petition.
8. Petition and application are dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
APRIL 15, 2015
'vkm/vn/ga'
