MADAN LAL Vs. HEMA WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point urged in this appeal is, whether the needs of the members of the family of the respondent landlady, who are not dependent on her, can be taken into consideration, when she claims eviction of the appellant-tenant on the ground that the premises let for residential purposes, are required bona fide by her for occupation as a residence for herself.

(2.) The respondent-landlady had filed the petition for eviction of the appellant-tenant under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground, inter alia, that the premises were required bona fide by her for occupation as a residence for herself and the members of her family dependent on her and that she had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. She also stated in her petition that her 0 family consisted of herself, her husband, two sons, four daughters and one sister-in-law's son. The eldest son was aged 22 years. The other children were getting education in Schools. The accommodation already with her consisted of one kotha, one kitchen and two small kolkis on the first floor of the house, which was said to be neither suitable nor sufficient for her needs.

(3.) The Controller held that the respondent-landlady was the owner of the premises in dispute, which had been let for residential purposes; and that she bona fide required the same for occupation as a residence for herself and the members of her family, and that she had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. An order of eviction was accordingly passed in her favour against the appellant-tenant. The Rent Control Tribunal, in appeal, concurred with the findings of the Controller and dismissed the appeal. In second appeal the same contention was pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.