URMIL JOSHI Vs. RAJ BATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER impugned is the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2011; the eviction petition filed by the landlady Smt. Raj Batra seeking eviction of her tenant Urmil Joshi from the suit premises i.e. first floor of the property bearing No.A-54, Lajpat Nagar ?IV, New Delhi as depicted in red colour in the site plan (filed in the Trial Court). The application seeking leave to defend had been dismissed.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement. Contention is that the petitioner is the landlady; she has inherited this property from her father Ladha Ram Batra after his death; she is the sole owner of the suit property. Premises had been rented out to the tenant by her father at a monthly rental of Rs. 200/-; the family of the petitioner comprised of herself and her one married daughter. Petitioner is a resident of London; her daughter is also a resident of Manchester, U.K.. The family of her daughter comprises of her husband and two children. Both the petitioner and her daughter visit India often. Specific contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner comes to India at least twice in a year and so also her daughter; they have to come India for their personal works and have to stay in hotel; which causes unnecessary expense and discomfort to the petitioner and her daughter. The petitioner wants to settle in India but due to non-availability of the suit premises she is not in a position to do so; the tenant is in fact a resident of Mohali and the premises are lying locked by her. The petitioner requires the premises bonafide for herself and her family members. Eviction petition was accordingly filed.

(3.) SECTION 14(1)(e) of the DRCA affords a right to a landlord to seek vacation of his premises if the premises are required by the landlord either for himself or for any member of his family who is dependent upon him. The specific averment of the landlady is that she wishes to settle in India but cannot do so because of non-availability of accommodation; her further undisputed submission being that she has frequent visits to India along with her daughter; the family of her daughter includes her husband and two children; the contention of the landlady that in these frequent visits she has to unnecessarily stay at a hotel and incur expenses and discomfort although she has an accommodation in India which has been tenanted out to the petitioner is also not denied. In these circumstances, the bonafide need of the landlady to get these premises evicted for herself has prima facie been established. It is also come on record that there is no other residential accommodation with the landlady. The submission of the tenant that A-67, Shalimar Bagh is a premises owned by the landlady has been specifically negatived; the premises are owned by her sister Sneh Arora.