SAT PAL SOOD Vs. RAJ KUMAR TULSIANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The premises consisting of barsati room kitchen, toilet and bath room owned by the petitioner at A-32 Lajpat Nagar-11, New Delhi constructed on a plot of 200 sq. yds. were let out to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 250.00 in July 1977 for respondential purpose. A petition for eviction was filed by the petitioner on 28.11.1984 under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground on bona fide personal need of himself and his family members dependant on him. It was contended in the said petition that the family of the petitioner consisted himself, his wife, three married sons and their wives, grand children and three married daughters.

(2.) The petitioner is in occupation of the entire ground floor and first floor of the said premises which consists of 3 bed rooms on the ground floor and two bed rooms on the first floor. The first floor is occupied by the second son of the petitioner who resides, there with his family and has an independent mess. Thus, it was contended that the petitioner has only, the ground floor premises available to him for the residence of rest of the family members. The petitioner submitted that the eldest son of the petitioner was desirous of having a separate mess because his daughter-in-law did not get along well with his wife and even otherwise the ground floor accommodation is inadequate to accommodate petitioner, his wife, two married sons and their wives and grand children. The petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has got three married daughters who occasionally visit him and a room is required to accommodate them whenever they come stay with the petitioner. The Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 3.7.1986 dismissed the eviction petition. This revision petition is directed against the said order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 3 7.1986.

(3.) The revision petition was admitted on 28.10.1986. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for early hearing being C.M. 5.93 of 1990. The petitioner stated in this application the petitioner is now suffering from hypertension and Ischeamic heart disease and is under the treatment of Dr. Ved Prakash and Consultant Dr. Naresh Trehan of the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre. The petitioner's wife is also suffering from endogenous discretion and is under the treatment of Dr. K.K. Kothari, Consultant Psychiatrist, Holy Family Hospital. The petitioner has placed on record the certificate issued by the doctors certifying that the petitioner and his wife are under their treatment. It is submitted in the said application that in view of the health of the petitioner and his wife, they are required to avoid mental strain and nonavailability of accommodation is disrupting their harmonious life. The respdt. also filed an application (C.M./1652/90) under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure slating therein that certain subsequent events had taken place which reduced the need of the petitioner. The respondent submitted that one of the sons of the petitioner has now permanently shifted to Gauhati and thus the need has reduced. A reply has been, filed to the said application. The petitioner has -denied that his son is posted at Gauhati. The petitioner has given the employment details of the son and has also placed on record documents like ration card, childrens school cerficates etc. to show that the son alongwith his family is very much in Delhi and has only occasionally to visit Assam.