UMA RANI Vs. VMOD KUMAR DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions 80 to 82 of 1980. In all these petitions the landlady is seeking to challenge the order of the Rent Controller, Delhi dated 23rd October, 1979 whereby the Rent Controller, Delhi had dismissed the eviction petitions filed by the landlady.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of House No. 439, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. In the said house there were a number of tenants. The petitioner's husband was a Government employee and was in occupation of government accommodation at Turkman Road, New Delhi. The government had passed an order requiring the persons occupying the government allotted accommodation to either vacate the premises or, in default, incur certain obligations on the ground that those allottees were owning residential accommodation in Delhi. On the aforesaid ground and also on the ground of bonafide personal need under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act the petitioner filed eviction petitions against seven tenants. During the pendency of the proceedings, one tenant vacated the premises and three petitions were withdrawn by the petitioner and three petitions were dismissed by the Rent Controller, against which the present revision petitions have been filed. According to the petitioner her family consists of herself, her husband, two daughters and two sons, out of which one son is married. According to the petitioner the accommodation which was in her occupation was insufficient and she bonafide required the tenants to vacate the premises. It was also stated in the eviction petitions that the petitioner's husband owned a house in Gali Mandir Wall, Sir Sayyad Ahmed Road, New Delhi, but the same was in occupation of a tenant, namely Sh. Ishwar Dass, and as that property was situated in a slum area the same could not be vacated. It was also alleged in the petition that the petitioner herself was an acute patient of diabetics and hypertension and the said property belonging to the husband was situated in a very small street of old Delhi and was not suitable for her. The case of all the respondents was almost common. Their contention was that the petitioner had a more than sufficient residential accommodation. It was stated by them that the aforesaid house owned by her husband had fallen vacant, as the tenant Sh. Ishwar Dass had left the said premises and, therefore, the petitioner did not bonafide require any further premises. It was also mentioned that Miss. Tara Gupta, one of the tenants in the house in question, had vacated some part of the premises in her occupation and another tenant Sh. Jagan Nath Ghatterjee had vacated two rooms. According to the respondents on the petitioner acquiring the aforesaid premises vacated by Miss Tara Gupta and by Jagan Nath Chatterjee and by taking into consideration the accommodation available with her husband at Darya Ganj, the petitioner cannot be said to bonafide require more premises.

(3.) Evidence was led by both the parties before the Rent Controller, Delhi. The Rent Controller held that the petitioner was in occupation of the following accommodation: