Full Text
+
IN THE IIIGII COURT
RC.REV. T39I2OII
URMILA MEHRA
VEISUS
T'hro'gh: Mr. N.N ont;r;iXlili#
.>
Fr
;
ASHOK KUMAR
ORD-ER
"h 05.08.2011
RC.REV. 139/2011 and CM APPL. 852212011
I have heard the leamed counsel for the parties.
The petitioner - landlord is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned
Additional Reirt Controller granting leave to defend to the respondent - tenant the eviction petition filed by her under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control
Act,'1958 against hirn in respect of the premises in question on the ground of her bonaJide requirement of the sane.
The petitioner - landlady presently staying in a posh colony of New Delhi filed the eviction petition against the respondent in respect of the property under his tenancy in Jeewan Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi, which had been let out to her by her deceased husband, claiming that she wants to shift to that premises as she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation for herself as well as her family rnembers depending upon her for residence out of whom her two sons were settled in UAE but have now decided to come back to India. She pleaded in the eviction petition ihat she wanted all her family members to be with her in one house in different units to be constructed in the house in question from where eviction of the respondent was being sought.
The respondent - tenant sought leave to defend the eviction petition on different grounds and the main ground was that the petitioner was already residing atE-6I, NDSE-I,.New Delhi, which property was a 3 % storeyed house and in that house she had been living for more than four decades.
L'he learned Additional Rent Controller dealt with this plea of the
RC.REV. 139/2011 pase l of 4
2011:DHC:15705
E respondent - tenant and has also other aspects of the matter in paras no. 8 to 14 of the impugned order and came to the conclusion that the respondent - tenant was entitled to get leave to defend the eviction petition filed against him. Those paras of the impugned order are re-produced below:
Nath Mehra, her three daughters namely Smt. Kanta Mehra, Smt.Sumitra
Kapur aud Smt. Raj Kumar and hence the petitioner is not the exclttsive owner of the said propefty. g. In view of above, the respondent has alleged that the petitioner is having more than sufficient accommodation at her disposal in property bearing No. E-61, NDSE, Part I, New Delhi - 110049 which is a 3 % storey building measuring 300 sq. yds. And petitioner has been residing there comfortably. The petitioner has disputed the said fact that she has been residing in the said property comfortably. Although, the petitioner has contended irr her counter affidavit that the said proper(y is owned by her mother-in-law namely Smt. Ram Rakhi Melrra who has expired leaving behind lrer other legal heirs including the petitioner and the petitioner is not exclusive owner of the said property, but the petitioner has not disclosed to what extent the said building is built up. The petitioner has not specifically controverted the fact that the said properly bearing No. E-61, NDSE, Part I, New Delhi - 110049 is not condtructed upto 3 Vz storey.
The petitiorrer has also not placed on record the site plan of the said propefly to show the extent of accommodation available with the petitioner in the said properfy. When the respondent has categorically stated that petitioner is having more than sufficient accommodation available with her in the propsrty bearing No. E-61, NDSE, Part I, New Delhi - 110049, then the petitioner should have filed the site plan of the said property to show the extent of accommodation available with her in the said property.
JUDGMENT
10. It is also pertinent here to mention that the petitioner has not disclosed in the petition itself that how much accommodation is available rvith the petitioner. Therefore, it raised a triable issue regarding sufficient availability of the accommodation with the petitioner and as to whether the petitioner requires the suit premises bonafidely in the absence of any particulars given by the petitioner regarding accommodation which is available with her. RC.REV.139/20II pase 2 of[4] 1 1. The respondent has also contended in leave to defend application that he is tenant in respect of only one room in the suit property with common user of latrine/ bathroom and courtyard and the respondent has no concern with the second srnall room measuring 7.[5] ft x 7ft. 10 inches as alleged by the petitioner He has further contended that the tenancy itt respect of the said room is independent, separate and distinct in favour of the son of the respondent namely Sh. Neeraj who is livingtherein with his wife and children. While, the petitioner has shown extent of tenanted premises to be two rooms, common bathroorn and toilet at the back side portion of ground floor of House No. 167, Jeevan Nagar, Gurudwara Bala Sahib Road, Ashram,New Delhi in her petition. In this regard, the respondent has placed on record the photocopy of rent receipts dated 10.02.2009, 10.06.2009, 10.08.2009, 10,122009, 10.08.2007 and 10.10.2007 which show that the respondent is tenant in respect of only one roorn. On the other hand, the petitioner has also placed on record the plrotocopy of rent.receipts dated 10.04.2002, 10.06.2002 and 10.02.2009 which shows two rooms in possession of the respondent. therefore, it raises a triable issue as to whether the respondent is tenant in respect of two rooms as alleged by the petitioner or there are two separate tenancies in respect of the said two rooms and respondent is tenant in respect of only one room as contended by the respondent.
12. The respondent has also contended in leave to defend application that the sons and grandsons ofthe petitioner are rvell settled and they are not deperrdent upon the petitioner for the purpose of residence. The petitioner has denied flre same in her reply to leave to defend application and has stated that two sons of the petitioner narnely Sh. Lalit Mehra arrd Sh. Vinay Mehra are employed at UAE and their respective families are with them at UAE. It is ftlrther stated there is a ban of ernployment after the age of 60 years as psr the laws of UAE and hence said two sons of the petitioner are willing to come back to India with their respective family and they have decided to reside with the petitioner along with their families in one house property after repair/reconstruction of the house in question., 13. The aforesaid plea that the two sons of the petitioner are employed at UAE and they intend to return back to India and want to live with the petitioner in one house after reconstruction of the properly in question, was not pleaded by the petitioner in the petition. Tlre respondent has also contended in his leave to defend application that the petitioner at one hand is seekirrg to re-construct the entire building and on the other hand is seeking evictiou of respondent and other two tenants only, whereas there are other tenants also in the same building against which evictiorr petitions have not been filed.
14. As such, as the aforesaid plea that the two sons of the petitioner are employed at UAE and want to come back to India to reside with the petitioner at one house after re-construction of the house in question was not raised by petitioner in the petition and fiuther as contended by the respondent that if entire building is to be rc-build or re-coustructed, all the RC.REV. T39/2011 nase 3 of[4] j- I, )tp tenants in the building are required to be evicted. Whereas, the petitioner has not taken any steps for eviction of other tenants. Therefore, it raises a triable issue as to whether the petitioner requires the suit premises bonafidely or not." It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the eviction petition was filed under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act and, therefore, the question of her being in possession of any other alternative accommodation was irrelevant ard all that was required to be shown by the petitioner was that she was a widow and that thc tenanted premises had been let out'either by herself or by her deceased husband and both these facts in the present case being not disputed by the respondent - tenant there was no justification in giving leave to the respondent - tenant to contest the eviction petition by the trial Court. I an, however, not in agreement with the afore-said submission of the lear-ned counsel for the petition for the reason that even in an eviction petition filed by a widow under Section 14-D it has to be shown that the tenanted premises arc require d. bona fide by the widow - landlady. In the present case, the facts nanated in detail by the leamed Additional Rent Controller in the impugned order which have been extracted already, make it clear that the requirement of the petitioner -- lanClady, prima facie, cannot be said to be bona fide. In fact, all that she desires is to construct residential apartments after getting the premises in occupation ofthe respondent vacated. Presently, her children and grandchildren arc aclmittedly living in UAE and the petitioner herself is also admittedly staying i[1] NDSE, a posh locality of New Delhi of which she is a co-owner with her children who are in UAE and it appears to be quite improbable that she would leave that posh area to settle down in Jeewan Nagar, Ashram. I, therefore, do not find any pelversity in the impugned order of the Additional Rent Controller justifying interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional iurisdiction. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. \.-" AUGUST 05,2011 sh RC.REV.I39/2OTI page[4] of[4] - Rer\u* Y*\i+i* sl',lL,ll P.K. BHASTN,J r',/ - C M t-ttz!/z o I I {-or t*r.n"!,{iaa * * IN THE HIGH COURT OF RC.REV. r39t20rr URMILA MEHRA Tlu'ough: ASHOK KUMAR Through: None CORAM: HON'BI,E MR.
JUSTICE P.K. BIIASIN,GT DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner Mr. FL Devrajan, Mr. Satykam Saini & Mr. Ashok Rajagopalan, Advocates versus..... Respondent..{ ORDER,h 21.09.20II cM APPL.17268/2011 Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. This application stands disposed of accordingly. REV. PT]TITION 52412011 I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has argued that while rejecting the revision petition this Court had observed flrat even in an eviction petition filed by a widow under Section 14 (D) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 she has to show the bonafides of her requirements in respect of the tenanted premises on the s- basis of which she seeks eviction of a tenant, in fact, is an observation on a misconception if law and that is a good ground for review of the order dated 5tl' August, 201I.In suppott of this argument learned counsel has cited one judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Boartl of Controlfor Cricket in India & Anr. Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors.", AIR 2005 SC 592. Another judgment of the Supreme Courl in "V. Rajaswari Vs, Bontbay Tyres Intl. Ltd.', lgSS Supp (3) SCC has also been cited by the learned counsel while contending that in the saicl judgment the Supreme Court has categolically held that in a case under Section L- A r> RC.REV. l39t20tl Pase 1 of[2] @- 14 (D), the tenant has practically no defence whatsoever. According to the learned counsel, the order passed by this Court on 5th August,2011 deserves to be reviewed. Alternative submission made is that in case this Court is not inclined to enterlain this review petition then at least the learned Additional Rent Controller should be directed to dispose of the petition at the earliest possible considering the fact that petitioner-landlady is over 80 years of age. After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlady, I do not find any ground to entertain this review petition and the same is, therefore, rejected. As far as the alternative prayer is concerned, it is ordered that the trial Court should make all possible effofts to dispose of the eviction petition as early as possible by giving short dates keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner-landlady is over 80 years ofage.
SEPTEMBER 21, 20lllpg {" LT "\ 7-.( P.K. BHASIN, J