Full Text
MAMTA
I7
*
+
1-
IN THE HIGI{ COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RC.REV.368120lr
SHAM LAL ...'. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yudhishter Sharma, Advocate.
ORDIIR
,h L4.09.21111
CM No. 17146-4712011
Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. These applications stand disposed of accordingly.
RC.REV.368/2011
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant.
The petitioner-tenant is aggrieved by an order of the learned Additional Rent
Controller whereby his prayer for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition filed by his landlady- respondent herein under Section 1a(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in respect of one room set on the first floor under his tenancy in property bearing No. E-22, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi has been declined and eviction order has been passed against him.
The respondent-landlady's family admittedly comprises of four members which includes her husband and two children aged 13 years and 9 years. She claimed in her eviction petition that she had with her only two rooms on the ground floor where she was living with her family and one small store on the first floor and, therefore, she required the tenanted premises in occupation of the petitioner-tenant for her own residence as well as for her family members.
The petitioner-tenant sought leave to contest the eviction petition claiming that the respondent-landlady has five rooms on the ground floor and one room on the first floor. However, today during the course of hearing of flre matter learned counsel for the petitioner stated that acLually the respondent-landlady has three rooms with her on the
RC.REV. 368/20I I page I of3
2011:DHC:16092 il
-L- ground floor and two rooms on the first floor out of which one has not been shown by her in the site plan and other one had been shown as a store room. So, five rooms were at the disposal of the respondent. It was also submitted that it was due to some mistake that it came to be wlitten in the leave application that she had five rooms on the ground floor and one room on the first floor.
The learned Additional Rent Controller has declined the leave sought for by the petitioner-tenant vide impugned order dated 4tl'August,201l by observing that the accommodation in possession of the respondent-landlady was not suffrcient and her requirement for the accommodation in occupation the petitioner-tenant was bona fide.
The relevant discussion and findings regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlord are to be found in paras No. 4 and 5 which are reproduced below:-
"4...,.. As far as the availability of accomntodation on the ground and first floor is concerned, the site plan filed by the petitioner reflects that there are only two rooms on the ground floor which can be considered as living rooms i.e., the room having size of ntore than 100 sq. feet. The room available on the first floor is only a store room and apart from it there are only two shops on the groundfloor and tenant cannot ask a landlord to use the shops for residential purpose. Respondent has not filed his own site plan to show that where the other three alleged living roonls exist on the ground floor and therefore his submissions that there arefive rooms on the groundfloor does not hold anyforce.
JUDGMENT
5. Now conting to the necessity and requirements of the petitioner viz-a-viz size of her family, she alongsisfu her husband requires one bedroom and two children aged I[3] qnd 7 years requires one bedroom. She further requires one guest room, one study room, one dining cum drawing room lhereby making her requirement of total number of rooms as five as per the size of her family and she has not only two rooms at present at her disposal. The requirement is highly bonafide. The family consisting of a married couple and two g'owing children who are also studying cannol be asked to continue living in two rooms only for the sake of accommodating the tenant. It is nov, settled lau, that courts are required to presume that the requirements of the petitioner is genuine and bonafide and the burden is on the tenant to rebut the same..........." Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has argued that the requirement of the respondent-landlady is of five rooms and she already has five rooms in her possession and, therefore, her requirement for the accommodation with the petitioner cannot be said to be bona fide and it is a fit case where leave to contest the eviction petition should have been granted by the trial Court. -,|- RC.REV. 368/20] I ptge[2] of[3] {i After going through the record and giving due consideration to the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner I do not find any material inegularity committed by the learned Additional Rent Controller declining the prayer of the petitioner for grant of leave to her to contest the eviction petition justiffing any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.