BILKISH Vs. KHUSHNUMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER impugned before this Court is the order dated 02.07.2011 vide which the eviction petition filed by the landlady under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) seeking eviction of the tenant from the premises i.e. 60/218, ground floor, Sunlight Colony, Old Seemapuri, Delhi had been decreed in favour of the landlady; the application seeking leave to defend had been dismissed.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlady under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA; the aforenoted premises (comprising of one room and a verandah on the ground floor) had been tenanted out to the tenant in January, 1998; the family of the petitioner comprised of herself, her husband, two daughters and one son i.e. 5 family members who were presently living in the one pucca room/structure on the first floor and tin shed on the second floor; site plan depicting the suit premises has also been filed along with the eviction petition. Further contention in the eviction petition is that the tenant had initially asked for temporary shelter to provide treatment for her handicapped son and that is why the premises had been leased out but inspite of requests she has thereafter refused to vacate the suit premises. The accommodation presently available with the petitioner is insufficient; she has no other alternate suitable accommodation; the tenant in fact has an accommodation in Ghaziabad UP which is less than one kilometer from the present premises; tenant can leave in the said premises; present premises are bonafide required by the petitioner for use for herself and her family members.

(3.) NO other submission has been pleaded in this application seeking leave to defend. Today before this Court, it has been urged that the premises are in fact located in a slum area and permission under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 has not been obtained; further submission being that the bar of Section 14 (6) of the DRCA also hits the landlord and in factthe impugned judgment has also noted this submission made by the tenant but has not dealt with it in the correct manner; the impugned judgment has in fact recorded a finding that even if a landlord wishes to sell the property after receiving the vacant possession of the suit premises, nothing bars him from doing so.