JEEVAN KUMAR KAUSHAL Vs. USHA NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent landlord filed an eviction petition under the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25 -B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the petitioner tenant in respect of one bedroom, one drawing -cum -dining room, one pantry, one kitchen, one toilet with small verandah of property bearing No. R -1/202 Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi. The tenancy was stated to have been created from May, 1988 with no written rent agreement between the parties. The petitioner states that the purpose of letting is residential.

(2.) THE eviction petition was contested by the petitioner by filing an application for leave to defend the eviction petition alleging that the purpose of letting was commercial and the respondent landlord did not bona fide require the premises. In terms of the impugned order dated 8.12.2003, the petitioner has been declined leave to contest the eviction petition and the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction in favour of the respondent landlord.

(3.) THE extent of accommodation available with the petitioner in Y -44, Ground Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi where she is residing at present is two bedrooms, one drawing -cum -dining room, one bathroom, one toilet, one kitchen and verandah. In whatever manner this requirement is tested, in my considered view, the accommodation cannot be sufficient for the size of the family of the respondent. Even if the requirement of the mother -in -law of the respondent is disputed, there can be no dispute about the requirement of one bedroom for the respondent and her husband, one bedroom each for the sons and daughters of marriageable age as well as a guest room. There are only two bedrooms available with the respondent. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner was not even able to seriously contend on the queries being put in this behalf that the requirement of the respondent landlady can be met in the accommodation available with her.