BHAGWATI PRASAD GARG Vs. RAKESH CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED judgment is dated 29.8.2011; the application filed by the tenant in pending proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA had been dismissed. Eviction petition filed by the landlord had been decreed. Record shows that the present eviction petition had been filed by landlord Rakesh Chaudhary on the ground of bonafide need. The premises in dispute is a part of property No.57, Subhash Market, Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi; they comprise of three rooms i.e. two store rooms and one shop on the ground floor; they have been depicted in red colour in the site plan; out of these three rooms one is being used as a shop and the other two are being used as godowns for storage purpose. Contention of the petitioner is that he along with his brother Vinod Choudhary are the co -owners of the properties bearing No.54 and 57, Subhas Market, Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi. These properties had been bequeathed to them by virtue of a will of their father. The brothers had arrived at a family settlement on 01.4.2007 whereby the portion as depicted in blue colour in the site plan had fallen to the share of his brother and portion as shown in green colour had fallen to the share of the present petitioner; stair case was common. This family settlement had been acted upon and there upon a memorandum dated 06.9.2007 had also been executed between the parties. Contention is that the present petitioner is living in the rooms marked A, B, C which is in the blue coloured portion which belongs to his brother Vinod Choudhary; in terms of the aforenoted settlement; this portion has gone to the share of his brother Vinod Choudhary and the parties had agreed that the premises which has fallen to share of Vinod Choudhary (which is presently in occupation of the present petitioner) will be vacated by him. Further contention is that the family of the petitioner consist of himself, his mother Ram Wati, his wife Roshni and two sons namely Raunaq and Sahil aged 13 and 11 years respectively. The size of the family is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the portion presently in occupation of the petitioner has fallen to the share of Vinod Choudhary in terms of the settlement. The vehement submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant is that the portion shown in red colour which is adjacent to the disputed premises comprises of three rooms and which have now been vacated by other tenants on 30.4.2011 satisfies the need of the landlord. This is in fact the only submission which has been urged before this Court.

(2.) THE status of the parties as owner/landlord had not been disputed; only argument addressed is on the issue that the landlord has already a sufficient alternate accommodation available with him or not.

(3.) IT is for the landlord to decide his own requirement and it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to him. The averments made in the eviction petition clearly show that the effective need of the landlord is seven rooms. It is only if the demised premises are added to the existing accommodation (fallen vacant on 30.4.2011) can the need of the landlord be satisfied; he would thus have six rooms in his occupation; he admittedly has to vacate the premises marked A,B and C which are his brother's share of the property.