RAJ RANI ARORA Vs. KAILASH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED judgment is dated 08.11.2011; the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short `DRCA') had been decreed; this judgment was modified on 14.12.2011; modification was to the effect that in a petition under Section 14-D of the DRCA no period of six months is required to be awaited for the purpose of execution. Vide earlier order dated 08.11.2011, period of six months was to be awaited by the landlord before he could get the decree executed.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlady-Kailash Sharma on the ground of Section 14(D) of the DRCA; she is a widow. There is no dispute to this factual position. She is the owner and landlady of the property bearing No. XV-372, Gali Chandi Wli, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 which had been let out to the tenant in the year 1982 on a oral agreement. Premises comprise of two rooms with cement sheets, latrine, bath room and verandah common on ground floor of the premises. The family of the petitioner comprises of herself, her son, his wife and two children i.e. five persons. The petitioner and her family were living on the first floor of the premises which consists of two small rooms, one big rooms, verandah, kitchen and bath room; one room on the ground floor was also in their occupation which is a store room. Two rooms on the second floor with small bath room is also in their occupation. Contention of the landlady is that she is suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis and knee joint pains and unable to climb stairs. Further contention being that she has undergone an operation for hernia in 1990 and the accommodation presently available is unsuitable and insufficient for their needs. The premises which are with the tenant on the ground floor are accordingly bonafide required by her for her residential purpose.

(3.) CORRESPONDING paras of the reply to the application seeking leave to defend have also been perused. It was denied that any refundable security of `50,000/- has been taken by the landlady or by her husband at the time when the premises were let out; this submission made by the tenant in his application for leave to defend has in fact admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such the objection raised in the trial court that there was no such relationship of landlord and tenant is negatived by this submission itself. Landlady also denied the contention that the premises originally comprised of 300 sq. yards out of which 150 sq. yards was sold to one Rajeshwardass Verma; contention was that in May 1999, 62 sq. yards had been sold. Present eviction petition has been filed on 27.4.2009 i.e. after more than a decade.