UMESH KUMAR BATRA Vs. MAHENDRA NATH SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED order is dated 18.10.2011; eviction petition filed by the landlord Mahender Nath Singhal seeking eviction of his tenant Umesh Kumar Batra from shop No.4, forming a part of property No.P-40-A, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi had been decreed. Application filed by tenant seeking leave to leave to defend had been declined.

(2.) EVICTION petition has been filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. Contention of the petitioner is that he requires the premises bonafide for his own use; he is a senior citizen aged about 68 years and he has retired from Education Department of Mathura, U.P. and has been residing at second floor of the same property which is property bearing No. P-40-A, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi; he is a chronic patient of asthma, high blood pressure and also having pain in joints of knee; he cannot climb the stairs from ground floor to second floor; he requires these premises in order that he can use these premises for the purpose of his residence; his contention is that he requires one room, latrine and bathroom for the purpose of his own use; eviction petition has been filed for this shop in order that he can convert it in a latrine and bathroom; there is no dispute to the fact that the corresponding eviction petition has been filed by the landlord qua shop No.2 of the same premises which he wants to use as a room; the present premises i.e. shop No.4 is required by him for converting it into a latrine and bathroom for his own use. In para no.3 petitioner/tenant has himself averred this fact that an eviction petition in respect of another shop is also pending in the court of same ARC.

(3.) THE site plan of the property filed with the eviction petition shows that there are six shops on the ground floor; admittedly this eviction petition is qua shop No.4. Admittedly shop No.2 is also the subject matter of a connected eviction petition which is pending before the same ARC i.e. Mr.Ravinder Singh, ARC. THE shop No.2 is required by the petitioner in order that he can use it for a bed room and shop no.4 is required to be converted in to a latrine and bathroom in order that the petitioner can use the ground floor as his residence. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a senior citizen who has retired from Education Department, Mathura, U.P. and is presently living in the second floor. It is also not in dispute that in old age almost every person suffers from knee/joints pains and arthritis complaints; this is also so in the present case; old age in fact by itself qualifies as a disease with the aforenoted accompanying hazards; the fact that the landlord is suffering from high blood pressure, knee and joint pains is also admitted. In these circumstances it is highly derogatory on the part of the tenant that the landlord has to occupy the second floor of the premises for his residence and has to climb stairs even if he is of 68 years of age only because his own ground floor premises is in occupation of a tenant. It is for the landlord to judge his own requirement; it is not for the tenant or the court to dictate terms to him as to how and in what manner he has to meet his needs for an accommodation. In Prativa Devi (Smt.) Vs. T.V. Krishnan reported in (1996)5SCC353 it was noted:-