DAYAL CHAND Vs. GULSHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order impugned is the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2004 vide which the petition filed by the landlord Dayal Chand under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRCA') had been dismissed.

(2.) Record shows that the petitioner claims himself to be the landlord of property bearing No. 1/5695, Gali No. 17, Delhi-10032; the respondent Gulshan Kumar was a tenant on the ground on the said premises; he was in occupation of one room, kitchen with common use of a latrine and bathroom. Contention of the petitioner in the eviction petition is that the premises in his occupation comprises of three rooms on the ground floor with common courtyard and one room on the first floor. His family comprises of himself, one married son and three children; this eviction petition was filed in the year 2000. The petitioner at the relevant time was 80 years of age; contention being that he needs a separate room for himself; his son Inderjeet aged 45 years has a family of whom two were adult daughters aged 21 years and 15 years respectively and third son is aged 10 years; they had been living together in the said property; his other son is residing in Germany who used to visit the petitioner and the accommodation presently available with them is not sufficient for them. Present eviction petition has accordingly been filed.

(3.) Leave to defend had been granted to the tenant and he had filed his written statement. He has raised certain contentions; the impugned order has returned a fact finding that the present petitioner is a co-owner in the disputed premises; admittedly a coowner can maintain an eviction petition and this point was rightly decreed in favour of the landlord. In view of the judgment of Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union of India, 2008 148 DLT 705there is also no distinction between a commercial and a residential purpose as far as the applicability of provisions contained in Section 14 (1)(e) are concerned. Oral and documentary evidence had been led before the trial Court. Three witnesses had been examined on behalf of the landlord which included Inderjeet Singh Sharma who had appeared as an attorney of his father as PW-1; PW-2 was their maid servant and PW-3 was their neighbor. Tenant has produced himself as RW-1. On the basis of evidence which had been led before the trial Court, the ARC had returned a finding that the bonafide need of the landlord has not been established. The averments made in the eviction petition as also the documentary evidence which included the site plan Ex.PW-1/7 as also the admission of PW-1 in the cross-examination had led the trial Court to return a finding that the landlord is confused about his need; he has sufficient accommodation available with him; the need of the petitioner having an independent personal room for religious purpose qua the petitioner has come to an end as the petitioner has expired during the pendency of the petition. The landlord having sufficient accommodation with him which had not been put to gainful use, the need of the landlord for the room available with the tenant was a malafide need. Petition had accordingly been dismissed.