SARASWATI DALMIA Vs. BENNET COLLMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, petitioner herein, filed an eviction petition against Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent. Control Act as amended by the Amend Act, 1988 for recovery of immediate possession of premises situated at plot No. 9 Blook No. 159. 4, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. Summons under III Schedule of the Delhi Rent Control Act were issued and the respondent appeared and filed an application seeking leave to defend the petition alongwith an affidavit of Shri Ramesh Chandra, Executive Director of the respondent company. The facts as alleged in the affidavit are that the petitioner is residing at 27, Akbar Road which is known as 9, Man Singh Road having an area of 5 acres on which a two-storeyed building has been constructed. There are 30 large size rooms in that bungalow besides servant quarters numbering about 20 and garrages etc. and the petitioner has more than three rooms in her exclusive possession besides that other rooms in the building are also available to her. The petitioner's son Gun Nidhi Dalmia is residing in a part of the premises with his wife and three daughters who are below the age of ten years. The petitioner has five daughters; Shiela Aggarwal is residing at Sardar Patel Marg, within the precincts of the Estate of Edward Kaventar (s) Pvt. Ltd, Vasudha is married and is settled at Germany, third daughter Yashodara is living with her husband at Bombay, fourth daughter Ilia is living at Sardar Patel Marg in another bungalow in the estate of Edward Kevender (s) Pvt. Ltd. fifth daughter Shakti Dalmia is living with the petitioner at 27 Akbar road. The whole house is at the disposal of the petitioner and her son and they have more than sufficient accommodation available with them. The petitioner is 70 years old and is well looked after by her family members. The petitioner has been living in that house since the time her husband had let out the permises in dispute to the respondent and after the premises were let to the respondent, there has been no increase in the number of family members of the petitioner. If the son of the petitioner Gun Nidhi Dalmia got married and has three daughters added to his family, three daughters of the petitioner had also been married and shifted to their respective marital houses and Shri Ram Kishan Dalmia who also used to live at 27 Akbar Road has died and after his death several rooms which were in his possession also came in possession of the petitioner. There is no paucity of accommodation in the said house at 27 Akbar Road.

(2.) The other point raised in the application seeking leave to defend is that earlier in 1985. the petitioner had filed a petition for eviction of the respondent under Section 14(1) (a) & (i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and there was no mention of the bonafide requirement. That petition was got dismissed as withdrawn in the year 1989. Again the petitioner filed a petition under Section 14 (1) (k) ofthe Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for the purpose of rebuilding and making substantial alterations which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. Even in that petition there was no mention of the bonafide requirement of the petitioner for her residence. There has not been any change in the circumstances from 1985 to 1989 necessitating the petitioner to file the petition for eviction on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. It has also been pleaded specifically that the petitioner has no intention to acquire the premises for residence. She wants to sell it off. As per the Information of the respondent, the petitioner had entered into an agreement for disposal of the building to Dalmia Dairy International which fact find mention in the notice dated 26.7.85 served by Mr. Arun Jaitley Advocate on behalf of M/s. Twenty First Century Construction Pvt. Ltd. and a reply was received through Rajiv Nayyar in which he did not deny the receipt of Rs. 10 lakhs from Investors and Dealers Ltd. on 5.8.85, or about the deposit of Rs. 68,46,620.00 with the Land and Development Office and the petitioner has not taken refund of this amount. It is alleged that all these grounds taken by the respondent tenant in the application seeking leave to delend supported by an affidavit, go to show that leave to defend should be granted to it as requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner landlady, she has stated that she has only right of residence In Kothl 27, Akbar Road. She has no ownership right in this property. She has also denied that she Is in exclusive possession of more than three rooms. The fact of filing of earlier eviction petitions on grounds other than personal bonafide requirement has not been denied. Regarding entering into an agreement she stated that she had intention to rebuild and redevelop the entire property with the help of a builder and she wanted to retain three or four flats for herself. She required the property in dispute bonafide for her residence and for the residence of the members of her family.