Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 642 (DEL)

RADHA RANI CHAUHAN v. MANU SH]ARMA

2004-08-18

R.S.SODHI

body2004
R. S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) CRP 890/1998 is directed against the judgment dated 27. 8. 1998 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi (for short "the Controller") in Petition No. 115/90e, whereby the Controller has dismissed the petition of the landlord under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case as has been noted by the Controller are as under : ". . . . . . . . THAT she is the owner of the premises bearing No. 105, Circular Road, Shahdara, Delhi -32 and respondent is her tenant in respect of two rooms besides a store, combined bath and latrine as shown in red in the site plan in the said premises since 1. 1. 1989 for residential purposes vide a written rent agreement. It is alleged that now the demised premises are required bonafide by the petitioner for occupation as a residence for herself and the members of her family which consists of herself, her husband, two sons and a daughter since the petitioner who is present residing at Jhansi along with her family members has decided to settle at Delhi in her own house after the retirement of her husband. It is further stated that the petitioner is present in occupation of two rooms and a kitchen besides common bath and latrine in the premises in question which accommodation is not sufficient for the petitioner and the petitioner is not having any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation at Delhi. 2. Summons of the petition under Schedule-III of DRC Act were sent to the respondent, who in pursuant thereto appeared and filed an application seeking leave to defend the eviction petition which was allowed by the ld. Predecessor of this court on 30/10/90 listing the case for filing of WS on 27. 11. 90. 3. The respondent in her WS has denied that the petitioner is the owner of the premises. She has also denied the extent of accommodation let out to her by the petitioner. It is stated that premises under tenancy of the respondent is three rooms, one store, kitchen, latrine, bath, courtyard on ground floor of the premises in question. It is denied that the petitioner intends to shift to Delhi from Jhansi. She has also denied the extent of accommodation let out to her by the petitioner. It is stated that premises under tenancy of the respondent is three rooms, one store, kitchen, latrine, bath, courtyard on ground floor of the premises in question. It is denied that the petitioner intends to shift to Delhi from Jhansi. The respondent has further stated that two sons and one daughter of the petitioner are not dependent upon the petitioner; that they are residing independently. It is further stated that one son of the petitioner is employed in Railway School, Kota Rajasthan as a teacher and he is living there. It is further stated that the daughter of the petitioner is also employed as a teacher and she is living with her brother Pradeep Kumar at Jhansi. The respondent has also disputed the purpose of letting. According to her the premises in question were let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes and the same is being used as such since inception of tenancy. It is further stated that the petitioner has got one room in the suit premises which is lying locked for the last many years and besides this room, the petitioner has got big spacious vacant building at Ragharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi of which she is the owner. It is further stated that the petitioner does not want the premises for bona fide requirement as alleged but on the other hand she wants to let out the same to one Sh. Suresh Kumar at a higher rate of rent after getting the same vacated from the respondent. Further the petitioner also wants to sale the premises and she has negotiated with Sh Lakpat Ram Sharma in this regard. It is further stated that the petition being false and frivolous be dismissed with costs. " ( 3 ) IT is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the Controller went wrong in deciding issue no. 2, namely, the purpose of letting inasmuch as the premises being in a residential colony even though the rent note is silent, should be presumed that the same was let out for residential purpose only. He also submits that the bona fide needs of the petitioner had been proved inasmuch as the petitioner was retiring from service and the family wanted to shift to Delhi from Jhansi. He also submits that the bona fide needs of the petitioner had been proved inasmuch as the petitioner was retiring from service and the family wanted to shift to Delhi from Jhansi. ( 4 ) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and have perused the judgment under challenge. Nobody appears for the respondent. From the judgment under challenge, it appears to me that the trial court has come to the conclusion that the rent note Ex. AW1/1, which is otherwise silent on the purpose of letting, is not a genuine document. The trial court has also returned a finding that had the purpose of letting been residential then the kitchen portion thereof would also have been let out. He also notes that the very pleadings of the petitioner themselves suggest that only two rooms and latrine have been let out. Counsel for the petitioner submits that from the evidence on record it appears that the respondent has admitted that the respondent along with her family has been residing in the premises. He therefore contends that on this admission itself it should be held that the premises let out were for residential purposes. I have gone through the statement of RW-1 and found that she states that the premises were let out to her since 1983, whereas the rent note in question is allegedly drawn up on 14th May, 1989, which is purportedly to take effect from January, 1989. She further states that she has taken the premises on rent for purposes of residence as well as commercial. The agreement Ex. AW1/1 which is purportedly made much later and refers to its coming into effect on an earlier date is most doubtful. Even otherwise, it appears that the aforesaid premises was let out by the earlier owner to one Tika Ram and that the same was got vacated by the present landlord for the purposes of her requirements but have instead been let out to the present respondent at a higher rent. The statement of respondent that the petitioner is only interested in increase of rent gets substantiated. I have gone through the judgment under challenge, I find that the learned Controller has given reasons for his conclusion which are based on the material on record. There is no infirmity calling for interference. In this view of the matter, CRP 890/1998 is dismissed.