SHYAM BUHARI SINGH Vs. SUSHILA DEVI MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlady') on 1st March, 1977 filed an application under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for the eviction of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant').

(2.) In the eviction petition it was stated that the family of the landlady consisted of herself and her two sons. The elder son was married and had one son of about 1 years and the other son was still a student of B. Pharma. It was contended that she was in occupation of only four rooms on the ground floor besides a kitchen, a bathroom and a W. C. and she had one small store room on the first floor. It is further mentioned that one room was being used as drawing-room and another as dining-room. Another room was being used as bed-room by the elder son of the family. The only remaining room was being shared by the landlady and her younger son. It is also alleged that there was no guest-room in the possession of the landlady and guests often visited her. The elder son was stated to be a Charteredccountant and was working as an Accounts Officer in the Indian Oil Corporation at New Delhi. It was alleged that he required a separate room for his study. Mention was also made of a guest who was residing with her, namely, the brother-in-law of the elder son. The accommodation which is in the occupation of the tenant is of two rooms, kitchen, bath and W.C. and a common courtyard on the ground floor.

(3.) On summons being issued under Section 25 B the tenaut moved an application and an affidavit for leave to contest the case on merits. The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, granted the leave sought for. The case of the tenant before the Rent Controller was that the landlady did not bona fide require the premises which were being occupied by him. According to the tenant, the landlady had four big rooms on the ground floor and another big room and a store on the first floor. Other pleas were also raised by the tenant but it seems only two other pleas were agitaed before the Additional Rent Controller. The first such plea was that the petition was not maintainable as the word 'reasonable' had not been mentioned therein and secondly that the petition was bad in law as it had been filed only for a part of the tenanted premises. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller one of the rooms which was in the occupation of the landlady was coverted into a chemist shop. According to the landlady, her younger son had obtained the degree of B. Pharma and had become eligible to run a chemist shop. Despite best efforts it was not possible to a rent shop because of the high rents demanded by the owners of various shops. Under these circumstances the landlady approached the Governmental authorities and on permission being granted in October, 1978 one room was converted and the second son started running a chemist shop. The parties led evidence. After hearing the counsel or the parties the Additional Rent Controller, by his order dated 22nd March, fl980, held that the follawing three points arose for determination in the case.:-