M P RAWLA Vs. S D TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been directed under Section 25 B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the order dated 20th April, 1987 passed by Shri AX. Garg, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the peti- tion for eviction of the tenant-respondent on bonafide grounds under Section 14 (l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts set out in the petition for ejectment are that the petitioner owns a house No. G-14, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. In 1976 when he was trapsferred to Delhi, while he was working in Northern Railway as a Senior Signal and Tellicommunication Engineer, the petitioner-landlord filed a petition for ejectment of the another tenant, viz.,Shri R.C.Sehgal, of the first floor of the aforesaid house and he got possession thereof on 1st May, 1977 and the petitioner was living on the first floor till then. However, he chose not to file eviction petition against the preseat respondent-tenant at that time. After getting possession of the first floor, the petitioner filed the present petition for ejectment of the respondent-tenant from tha around floor of the house on 21st July, 1978 on the ground that the accommodation of the first floor, which he was occupying, was not sufficient and, therefore, required ground floor as well bonafide. The petitioner-landlord alleged that his family consisted of himself, his wife, one son and two daughters and on the first floor, which was in his occupation, consisted of only two bed-rooms, one drawing-cum-dining room and two mezzanines. According to the petitioner, two bed rooms were not sufficient for the family of the petitioner as one room was tequired by the petitioner and his wife, the other bed room was insufficient for the three children, particularly it was not desirable to closet the son with his two sisters in one room at the adolescent age. Moreover, the children were receiving education had no study room. Furthermore, his parents-in-law, who were aged persons and were not enjoying good health, particularly the mother-in-law, wanted to live in the company of their daughter, i.e., petitioner's wife as they had only one son who was serving in the army and there was none else to look after them. The petitioner being chronic asthma patient had been advised not to climb stairs as it was injurious to health. He also wanted to purchase a car and needed the garage on the ground floor for parking the car.

(3.) The respondent denied that the petitioner is in need of accommodation for his residence. According to him, the portion described as mezzanines in the petitioner were in fact two rooms of quite big size measuring 18' x 9'. Having regard to the status, size of the family, according to the respondent, the present accommodation in possession of the petitioner was sufficient. The parents-in-law of the petitioner were in no way dependent upon the petitioner and the demand of a garage for parking car was also not genuine. In fact the petitioner had been asking him to enhance the rent and as such the petition for ejectment had been filed malafide.