HINDUSTAN LRVER LIMITED Vs. L R KAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, is a tenant and in possession of the premises bearing No.C-108, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The respondent, Mr. L.R.Kakkar is the landlord/owner of the said premises, which he had purchased from Lt. Col. A.K. Sachdeva in the year 1974.

(2.) The respondent filed a petition on 28 March 1985 undersection 14(1)(e) read with section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act), for eviction of the petitioner from the said premises on the ground of bona fide requirement on the pleas of (i) paucity of existing accommodation and (ii) unsuitability of the existing accommodation. The petition was subsequently amended on 29 May 1985. The pleas raised by the respondent in his amended eviction petition were that he was residing in a tenanted first floor premises at 2/11, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, comprising of four rooms (including Pooja room), a kitchen and bath which was insufficient for him and his family, which consisted of self, his wife, his 38 years old son, son's wife, grandson aged 14 years and grand daughter aged 11 years; due to paucity of accommodation his younger son along with his family had shifted to another premises and that he had suffered heart attack about a year go and was advised not to climb the stairs and have a level walk in the morning; his sleep is disturbed due to heavy traffic on the main road of Patel Nagar where he is presently residing and the said accommodation was not suitable for him; the status of his family is sufficiently high and he wants to live in better surroundings.

(3.) The eviction petition was resisted by the petitioner, deny ing allegation of bona fide requirement and claiming that the petition was mala fide, filed for ulterior purpose to have it vacated for selling the same with vacant possession to fetch higher value and/or to increase rent. It was also claimed that the premises in question had lesser accommodation than what was available with the respondent in Patel Nagar house and therefore the subject premises would not be sufficient for him and his family. The plea of respondent having suffered heart attack or any such ailment was also denied.