Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 599 (DEL)

ADARSH DISTRIBUTORS v. URMILA DEVI

2004-08-10

R.S.SODHI

body2004
R. S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS REVISION PETITION IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01. 05. 2002 OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, DELHI IN E-133/2000 WHEREBY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER WHILE ADJUDICATING UPON AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 14d OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT HAS DECLINED LEAVE TO DEFEND. ( 2 ) BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS SUBMITTED BY THE LANDLADY IN HER PETITION UNDER SECTION 14d OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT ARE AS FOLLOWS: "2. . . . . THAT ONE ROOM ON THE GROUND FLOOR SPECIFICALLY SHOWN RED IN THE SITE PLAN IN PROPERTY NO. 2, RAMESHWAR NAGAR DELHI WAS LET OUT TO THE RESPONDENT BY THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER ON A MONTHLY RENT OF RS. 787/- FOR GODOWN PURPOSES. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HER HUSBAND HAS EXPIRED IN 1994, WHO WAS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN DISPUTE AND HE LEFT BEHIND PETITIONER AS HIS WIDOW AND FOUR SONS BAL KISHAN, HARISH, VIJAY AND VISHNU AND HER ONE SON VINOD KUMAR SHARMA DIED IN THE YEAR 1997 LEAVING BEHIND HIS WIDOW MADHU SHARMA AND HIS SON SUNIL AND DAUGHTER VINITI, AGED ABOUT 21 AND 18 YEARS, WHO ARE COLLEGE GOING. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAS TWO DAUGHTERS MANJU AND SAROJ, WHO ARE MARRIED. HENCE, AFTER THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND, SHE BECAME OWNER/landlady OF THE PROPERTY. 3. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HER FAMILY CONSISTS OF HERSELF, HER FOUR SONS AND THEIR CHILDREN AND THE TWO CHILDREN OF THE PRE-DECEASED SON VINOD KUMAR I. E. SUNIL KUMAR AGED 21 YEARS AND VINIT 18 YEARS, WHO ARE COLLEGE GOING. HENCE, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF FAMILY MEMBERS ARE 22, WHO ARE RESIDING WITH THE PETITIONER. HER SON BAL KISHAN AND HIS WIFE, ONE DAUGHTER AGED 16 YEARS AND HER SON 12 YEARS AND SCOND SON VISHNU BHAGWAN HAS HIS WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERS AGED 15 YEARS AND 16 YEARS AND ONE SON AGED 10 YEARS. HE THIRD SON HARISH KUMAR HAS HIS WIFE AND ONE SON AGED 10 YEARS AND TWO DAUGHTERS AGED 16 YEARS AND 12 YEARS. HER ANOTHER SON VIJAY HAS HIS WIFE AND THREE SONS AGED ABOUT 8 TO 14 YEARS. THE HOUSE OF THE PETITIONER CONSISTS OF ONLY TWO ROOMS, ONE VERANDAH, TWO KITCHENS, ONE SHOP, LATRINE, BATH ROOM ON THE GROUND FLOOR OUT OF WHICH, ONE ROOM IS UNDER THE TENANCY OF RESPONDENT. HER ANOTHER SON VIJAY HAS HIS WIFE AND THREE SONS AGED ABOUT 8 TO 14 YEARS. THE HOUSE OF THE PETITIONER CONSISTS OF ONLY TWO ROOMS, ONE VERANDAH, TWO KITCHENS, ONE SHOP, LATRINE, BATH ROOM ON THE GROUND FLOOR OUT OF WHICH, ONE ROOM IS UNDER THE TENANCY OF RESPONDENT. ONE ROOM ON THE GROUND FLOOR ALONG WITH KITCHEN IS OCCUPIED BY HER SON HARISH AND HIS CHILDREN AND IN VERANDAH THERE IS ONE KITCHEN. SHOP IS BEING RUN BY HER SON VIJAY. ON THE 1st FLOOR, THERE ARE TWO ROOMS, ONE TIN SHED OCCUPIED BY HER SON VISHU BHAGWAN AND HIS CHILDREN AND ONE ROOM BY HER SON AND HIS CHILDREN HAVING NO ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR. THERE IS ONLY BARSATI OF TIN SHED, WHICH IS USED FOR STORAGE OF HOUSE HOLD GOODS. THE CHILDREN OF HER PRE-DECEASED SON ARE LIVING WITH THE PETITIONER IN OPEN TIN SHED. THE ACCOMMODATION AVAILABLE WITH THE PETITIONER IS HIGHLY INSUFFICIENT KEEPING IN VIEW AND NUMBER OF FAMILY MEMBERS. HER GRAND CHILDREN ARE GROWN UP AND SCHOOL GOING AND THEY REQUIRE SEPARATE ACCOMMODATION. SHE ALSO REQUIRES AT LEAST ONE DRAWING ROOM FOR ENTERTAINING THE GUESTS AND RELATIONS. HER GRAND CHILDREN ARE COMPELLED TO LIVE IN TIN SHED ACCOMMODATION. HER TWO MARRIED DAUGHTERS CANNOT STAY WITH HER DUE TO PAUCITY OF ACCOMMODATION. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SHE BEING OWNER OF THE HOUSE HAS NO PLACE FOR HERSELF TO RESIDE INDEPENDENTLY. HENCE, SHE REQUIRES THE PREMISES IN OCCUPATION OF THE RESPONDENT FOR HERSELF OWN OCCUPATION. ON THESE GROUNDS, SHE SOUGHT EVICTION OF THE RESPONDENT FROM THE TENANTED PREMISES. " ( 3 ) IT IS CONTENDED BY COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER THAT THE ROOM IN QUESTION MEASURES 14 X 10 AND IS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. HE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS YET ANOTHER ROOM MEASURING 9 6" X 10 WITH THE SON OF THE LANDLADY AND HE IS RUNNING A SHOP THEREIN. THEREFORE, IF THE NEEDS OF THE LANDLADY WERE GENUINE THE AFORESAID ROOM WITH THE SON OF THE LANDLADY COULD HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO ACCOMMODATE THE FAMILY DEPENDENT UPON HER. HE ALSO CONTENDS THAT THE ROOM IN QUESTION WAS SPECIFICALLY LET OUT FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES AND, THEREFORE, GREATER BURDEN LIES ON THE LANDLADY TO SHOW THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS NOT FANCIFUL BUT IS IN FACT BONA FIDE. HE ALSO CONTENDS THAT THE ROOM IN QUESTION WAS SPECIFICALLY LET OUT FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES AND, THEREFORE, GREATER BURDEN LIES ON THE LANDLADY TO SHOW THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS NOT FANCIFUL BUT IS IN FACT BONA FIDE. HE REFERS TO A JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT IN NIRANJAN LAL SHARMA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L. RS. VS. VED KUMARI and ANOTHER, 2002 (2) RCR 293 AS ALSO JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN INDERJEET KAUR VS. NIRPAL SINGH, (2001) 1 SCC 706 . ( 4 ) COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDS THAT THE NEED OF THE LANDLADY HAS BEEN AMPLY SET OUT IN THE EVICTION PETITION AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A FAMILY OF 22 MEMBERS DID NOT NEED THIS EXTRA ROOM THAT IS TENANTED. HE ALSO SUBMITS THAT THE ROOM OCCUPIED BY THE SON OF THE LANDLADY WHO IS ALLEGEDLY USING IT AS A SHOP IS ALSO BEING USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES FOR THAT SON AND MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY. ( 5 ) I HAVE HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE JUDGMENT UNDER CHALLENGE. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER HAS TAKEN CARE TO EVALUATE THE NEEDS OF THE LANDLADY AND HAS ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT AS ALSO THE HIGH COURT TO ENSURE THAT THE NEEDS ARE ASSESSED AS BONA FIDE AND NOT FANCIFUL. ( 6 ) IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT PETITION, THE LANDLADY HAS A HUGE FAMILY OF 22 MEMBERS WHILE THE ACCOMMODATION AVAILABLE WITH HER IS INSUFFICIENT. I SEE NOTHING FANCIFUL IN HER NEED FOR THE TENANTED PREMISES IN QUESTION. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, I FIND NO INFIRMITY, IRREGULARITY, PERVERSITY OR JURISDICTIONAL ERROR IN THE JUDGMENT UNDER CHALLENGE. ( 7 ) RC. REV. 571/2002 AND CM. APPL. 1231/2002 ARE DISMISSED.