AMARJIT SINGH Vs. KHATOON Q UAMARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 21st March, 1983.

(2.) On or about 3rd January, 1977, the landlady, the respondent herein, had filed a petition for eviction of the appellant, the tenant, from the first floor of the premises situated at C-62, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi along with a garage on the ground floor with a servant's quarter above the garage as per the plan annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as the disputed flat). The ground of eviction was the bona fide personal necessity of the landlady. The premises had been let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 950/- and Rs. 50/- per month as facility for booster pump - totalling to Rs. 1,000/- per month, exclusive of water and electricity charges.

(3.) The respondent claimed to be the owner of the premises and stated that she required the premises for her residence and for the residence of the members of her family and further she was not in possession of any other suitable residential accommodation. She was at the time of filing of the petition, living, according to her, as a guest of her niece in her house in D-36, Nizammuddin East, New Delhi. She had asserted that she could not continue residing there permanently or indefinitely and that the accommodation with her niece was limited being only two bed rooms with a common bath room and that her niece wanted her own mother to stay with her and would like the landlady to shift as soon as respondent could. It was further averred that the niece of the respondent landlady was a working woman and for meeting her clients she needed accommodation as she was at all relevant time working as an executive in an advertising agency. It was also stated that the landlady was a social worker and had her own sphere of activities. There were two flats in the building in question. The landlady, according to her, needed one floor to let out one of the floors of that building to have income to support herself which, according to her, was her only source of livelihood and the ground floor of the premises at the time of the filing of the petition was in occupation of New Zealand Embassy at Rs. 2,500/- per month as rent. If was her case that she wanted to keep the ground floor let out to a tenant to draw a decent amount of rent and the only premises left for her residence was therefore the premises the disputed flat.