JAGANNATH Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has impugned an order of 30th September, 2011 in Eviction Petition No. E-4/2010 whereby the respondent-landlady's eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) has been allowed, the petitioner's leave to defend under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) was dismissed and eviction order with respect to the tenanted premises i.e. shop bearing No. 5357, Laddu Ghati, Paharganj, New Delhi has been passed. The landlady's case was that the tenanted premises are the only commercial accommodation available to her. She needs it for herself as well as her son Mr. Hariom Mittal who lost his right leg in the year 2005 in an accident. The said son was a truck driver and is now totally dependent upon his mother for starting a new business so as to earn a regular livelihood to maintain his two minor daughters and a son. The landlady's case was also that the house in which she was living is woefully insufficient to accommodate her, her husband and her six sons and their respective wives and children. In the application for leave to defend the petitioner-tenant had argued that the petition was not bona fide. In support he had (i) listed eleven properties as being available to the landlady, (ii) that the premises were in a slum area and permission ought to have been taken from the competent authority to seek the eviction of the tenant, (iii) that the eviction petition did not specify the boundaries' or dimensions of the tenanted premises and (iv) finally, that she did not provide documentary details of ownership of the premises.

(2.) In the arguments before this Court as well as the written synopses of arguments filed, the tenant has reiterated the same arguments as were made in his application for leave to defend. On the basis of record the Trial Court found that property No. 5234, Bharat Nagar, Paharganj was owed by the landladys' son Shiv Kumar Mittal, whereas property No. 5235 did not belong to either her or any of the family members. Therefore neither of the property was available to the petitioner. The shop at Chuna Mandi, Paharganj was owned by her other son Sh. Radha Raman Mittal. The shop at Rama Krishan Mission, Paharganj was under tenancy of her husband hence it too was not available to her for occupation and use. The property at 219, DSIDC Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I was being used by her other son D.K. Mittal, who engaged was in water-supply business, under the name of M/s. Mittal Water Supplies; this property too did not belong to the landlady/eviction-petitioner. The shop at Panchkuian Road Furniture Market too was under tenancy hence not vacant for her use.

(3.) It is settled law that the tenant cannot dictate as to how and which property the landlady should use for which purpose so as to adjust and meet the requirement of her bona fide need, without calling out the tenant to vacate the tenanted premises. Kishan Lal v R.N. Bakshi, 2010 169 DLT 769 It is not for the tenant or the Court to expect a landlady to make adjustments in the accommodation available to her to meet her bona fide need or requirement. The respondent-landlady has argued that the son who suffers from permanent severe disability is unemployed and has not found any accommodation to start his own business so as to earn his livelihood therefore he is dependent upon her mother-the landlady for the provision of a suitable commercial accommodation. That the eviction petition was filed for the bona fide requirement by the landlady and her son. This Court is of the view that each arguments raised in the leave to defend application has been adequately dealt with. None of the issues raised in it found to be triable. The legal arguments were duly dealt with in accordance with law; the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity warranting the interference of this Court in this petition. The petition lacks merit.