RAMJI LAL Vs. PRITAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (tenant) has challenged the eviction order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 4 June 2013 in respect of the tenanted premises being ground floor of property bearing number II/50/7-8 Sadar Bazaar, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi - 10.The tenanted premises comprised a shop in the front, 2 rooms in the rear, one kitchen, one bathroom and a WC along with open space at the back. The tenant's application for leave to defend was rejected. This revision petition has been preferred under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")

(2.) The tenant submits that the tenancy relates back to the year 1964 however effectively the date to be reckoned is the rent agreement of 21 November 1990, whereby the rent was enhanced from Rs.14 to Rs.150 per month. The respondent (landlady) filed an eviction petition under section 14 (1) (e) read with section 25B of the Act seeking eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises, for her bona fide need. The ground being that she was about 85 years of age, suffering from osteoporosis and vitamin D deficiency, apart from old age related problems which prevented her free movement; that she had been medically advised to reduce exertion to her knees and had been specifically cautioned against climbing stairs; that it was extremely difficult and painful for her to climb up and down the stairs to her first floor residence in the aforesaid property; that her elder son Mr. Arjinder Singh had been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and he too required the ground floor premises because of his health problems. Additionally, the respondent/landlady claimed bona fide need of the premises on account of the fact that she had a large family which was dependent on her; her two sons namely Arjinder and Parvinder resided in the same building. The former on the first floor with his wife, his son and the son's wife, one unmarried daughter and the petitioner. His other daughter visited him frequently therefore she too required a separate accommodation. The first floor comprised of 2 bedrooms, 2 guestrooms along with a shared kitchen, a bathroom and a WC. On the second floor the petitioner's second son, a widower lived with his two unmarried sons, the elder of whom had set up a stall of gift items in front of the property in order to contribute to the financial needs of the family. They occupied the bedrooms available on the 2nd floor and shared a kitchen, a bathroom and a WC. The petitioner also claims space for her three married daughters who would often visit her with their respective families. It was also contended that one of her daughters was widowed and lived in Chandigarh in a tenanted accommodation. This daughter was barely able to sustain herself and wanted to permanently shift to Delhi and live with her mother to take care of her in her old age, but do to paucity of space, she was constrained from doing so. The landlady further contended that her elder son who had superannuated from service with the Food Corporation of India, wanted to start his own business from the tenanted premises to augment his finances because his meagre monthly pension of Rs.5000/-, was insufficient to take care of his financial needs. Furthermore the said elder son - Arjinder needed to get his daughter, Ramandeep Kaur married. His son Rajinder, although working with a multinational corporation was unsatisfied with this job and wanted to start his own business and was confident that an institute of foreign languages would be most suited in the front portion of the tenanted premises; that he had done an advanced diploma in Portuguese language from Delhi University, which would serve as an advantage in the running of the proposed institute. The landlady claimed the requirement of the tenanted premises for her own use as a residence in the back portion and for starting commercial activity in the front portion, so that her son and grandsons could start their own business to support the entire family, including her.

(3.) In the leave to defend application, the tenant had sought to contest the eviction petition essentially on the ground that: