Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 654 (DEL)

KRISHNA KUMARI v. K. L. SHARMA

2004-08-20

R.S.SODHI

body2004
R. S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) RC-REV. 7 of 2004 is directed against the judgment and order dated 28. 10. 2003 of the Additional Rent Controller (for short controller ) in eviction petition No. E-146/2001 dismissing the petition of the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act ). ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as noted by the Controller, are that :- "a petition u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Sec. 24-B of the DRC Act filed by the petitioner/landlady, Krishna Kumari, on the ground that she along with her family was residing at house No. 1/9522, Pratap Pura, West Rohtas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 and said house was disposed off on account of financial crunch in December, 1997 and now presently she along with her husband, two sons are residing at House No. 1/9464, Shahi Mohalla, West Rohtas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 which comprises of one room, kitchen, bathroom latrine on the ground floor and one room on the first floor, purchased two years ago by younger son of the petitioner, namely, Vipin Kumar Maini who is in private service since last 11 years and is of marriageable age. The petitioner has stated that the marriage of the younger son has not been solemnized on account of matrimonial disputes of elder son of the petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar Maini, which dispute has finally been settled by way of a decree of divorce granted by the court of law in 2001 and the proceedings u/s 498-A/406 IPC have also been quashed by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 9. 4. 2001. According to the petitioner she had obtained the possession of the property bearing No. 1/6522, Azad Gali, East Rohtas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 against consideration from its earlier owner on 25. 6. 90 and became the owner thereof and ground floor has been given to her son Anil Kumar Maini and his wife on account of strained relationships between them. Daughter-in-law retained the possession and finally vacated in December, 2000 in the litigation before the court of Sh. R. L. Chugh and all litigation have now been settled. 6. 90 and became the owner thereof and ground floor has been given to her son Anil Kumar Maini and his wife on account of strained relationships between them. Daughter-in-law retained the possession and finally vacated in December, 2000 in the litigation before the court of Sh. R. L. Chugh and all litigation have now been settled. She stated that she is the owner/landlady, in respect of premises No. 1/6522, Azad Gali, East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 as shown in red colour in the site plan and that in December, 2000 she requested the respondent to vacate the premises as petitioner required the same bona fide for her residence and or the residence of her family members dependent upon her. According to her, the respondent had promised to vacate the same but now has started quarreling since the day of vacation of premises of the ground floor and is creating problems. According to her when petitioner used to visit the house, he used to lock the main entrance and on one occasion gave a telephone call to the police at No. 100, so caused unnecessary humiliation to the petitioner. She stated that earlier there were eviction proceedings on account of non-payment of rent and has admitted the purpose of living as residence and also admitted the relationship of landlady and tenant. According to the petitioner, she is not owning any other house and the present accommodation is insufficient and that the present premises are required by her for the purpose of her residence as ground floor portion in the premises is not sufficient to accommodate the entire family. ( 3 ) IT was contended by counsel for the petitioner that the learned Controller has gone wrong in holding that the children of the petitioner are not financially dependent upon her and, therefore, the premises sought to be vacated is not required by her bona fide. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent, contended that the petitioner has accommodation where she is staying which is equivalent to the one in possession of the tenant and that the ground floor of the premises in question has been kept vacant which can always be used by the petitioner-landlady for her residence. ( 4 ) I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment under challenge as also the pleadings and material on record. ( 4 ) I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment under challenge as also the pleadings and material on record. From the pleadings it is clear that the landlady has contended that she needs the premises for residence of herself and members of her family who are dependent upon her for the purposes of residence. She has stated that her family consists of herself, her husband, two married daughters, who visit her frequently, two sons, one of whom was earlier married and living on the ground floor of the premises in question, namely, House NO. 1/6522, Azad Gali, East Rohtas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032, but after his divorce is also living along with the family. ( 5 ) THE petitioner, in order to establish her case, examined herself as PW-1. She stated that she is the owner of the premises No. 1/6522, Azad Gali, East Rohtas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, which was purchased from Shri Baldev Raj and Vinod Kumar, vide General Power-of-Attorney, Ex. PW-1/1, Agreement to Sell, Ex. PW-1/2, Affidavit, Ex. PW-1/3, Will, Ex. PW-1/4, and receipt of consideration, Ex. PW-1/5. The aforesaid house is two storeyed as shown in the site plan, Ex. PW-1/6. The first floor has been let out to the respondent for residential purposes only as shown in the site plan as per agreement, Ex. PW-1/7. She has further stated that she is residing in the house owned by her younger son, Vipin Maini, as shown in the site plan, Ex. PW-1/9. She has deposed that her family consists of herself,, her husband, two sons aged 45 and 32 years respectively. Their marriage could not be solemnized on account of litigation with the wife of the elder son and now due to insufficiency of accommodation. She has further deposed that to accommodate herself and members of the family, dependent upon her, she needs the entire premises No. 1/6522, Azad Gali, East Rohtas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, since the family are residing jointly. She states that the accommodation presently with them is insufficient. She has further deposed that she has two married daughters, both of whom are frequent visitors and needs accommodation for them as well. ( 6 ) IN her cross-examination, PW-1, has stated that earlier her elder son, Anil Kumar, used to reside separately on the ground floor of the premises in question. She has further deposed that she has two married daughters, both of whom are frequent visitors and needs accommodation for them as well. ( 6 ) IN her cross-examination, PW-1, has stated that earlier her elder son, Anil Kumar, used to reside separately on the ground floor of the premises in question. After his divorce, he has shifted with the landlady and the family. She has also stated that the ground floor portion has been lying vacant for the last three years as the accommodation is insufficient to accommodate the entire family. ( 7 ) THE learned Controller, while appreciating the evidence of PW-1, returned a finding that sons of the petitioner were not financially dependent upon her, and, therefore, cannot claim to be part of the family for which the premises in question were required bona fide. The Controller also found that the respondent has led no evidence. ( 8 ) AFTER carefully examining the material on record, I find that the petitioner-landlady, her husband, her two sons, who are living together in an accommodation of one room, kitchen, latrine and one room on the first floor, is certainly insufficient. ( 9 ) THE question whether the availability of the ground floor in premises bearing No. 1/6522, Azad Gali, East Rohtas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, which consists of two rooms and a bath room are sufficient or does the landlady need the first floor having the same accommodation in possession of the tenant also, must be considered in relation to the requirement of the landlady. PW-1 has stated that she needs the accommodation for two grown up sons, her husband, herself and two married daughters who frequently visit her. She has also deposed that her sons are dependent on her for residence purposes and that they are living in a joint family. ( 10 ) SINCE this statement of the landlady, PW-1, has not been controverted in evidence, I see no reason why she ought not to be believed and her requirements judged accordingly. A family of four would certainly need three bed rooms and one room for guests, visiting daughters and relatives. It would not be fair to insist upon the landlady to have her children living separately from her on the ground floor portion while she continues to stay in the present accommodation occupied by her. A family of four would certainly need three bed rooms and one room for guests, visiting daughters and relatives. It would not be fair to insist upon the landlady to have her children living separately from her on the ground floor portion while she continues to stay in the present accommodation occupied by her. It is for the landlady/landlord to choose how they wish to live and are not governed by the suggestions/directions of the tenant. In that view of the matter, the requirements of the petitioner of the portion under tenancy/possession of the respondent-tenant are bona fide and necessary. This is further supported by the fact that the ground floor has been lying vacant for the last three years and could not be used by the family since the accommodation was insufficient and there was no desire to let out or sell the premises in question. ( 11 ) THE ownership has not been challenged before me and, in any event, there is sufficient material on record to show that the petitioner has become owner of the premises in question. As regards the alternative accommodation, as already stated, the same is a one-room tenament which is hardly suitable alternative accommodation available with the landlady. The petitioner having been able to establish by evidence the bona fide requirement for herself and members of her family dependent upon her is entitled to an order of eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. The reasoning of the learned Controller that the sons of the landlady being financially independent are not dependent on her for residence is not borne out from the record which is to the contrary. ( 12 ) IN this view of the matter, I set aside the judgment and order dated 28. 10. 2003 of the learned Controller. An order of eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act in respect of the premises No. 1/6522, Azad Gali, East Rohtas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, as shown in the plan, is passed. Decree be prepared accordingly. The respondent is given six months time to vacate the premises in question. RC-Rev. 7 of 2004 is allowed. No order as to costs.