PAWAN KUMAR & ANR Vs. SAT NARAIN KAUSHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns an order dated 10.6.2011, whereby the evictionpetition of the respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the " Act") was allowed and an eviction order was passed on the ground of bona fide requirement with respect to the tenanted premises, i.e. one room admeasuring 10ft. X 8ft. on the ground floor of premises bearing No.2236, Gali Anar, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 (for short "tenanted premises"). The respondents/landlords had sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises were required for their bona fide use since they neither had sufficient nor suitable accommodation to satisfy the residential needs of their dependent family members. They had contended that for a family of nineteen (19) members living in the suit property, in addition to five married sisters and one married daughter each of petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 3 along with their respective children and husbands, who would often visit the petitioners in the suit property, the space available was woefully insufficient to meet their requirements. They had submitted that apart from the aforesaid property they had no other residential accommodation in Delhi. The Trial Court took into account the details of accommodation on the ground, first and second floors of the suit property. On the ground floor a room admeasuring 20.3ft. X 8ft and two stores admeasuring 10ft. X 4ft and 10ft. X 5 ft. inside the said room was shown in the site plan filed by the landlords. On the first floor one room admeasuring 13.6ft. x 9ft. and another room admeasuring 20.3ft. X 8ft. with two stores admeasuring 10ft. x 4ft. and 10ft. x 5ft. and a kitchen and a bathroom were shown in possession of the eviction-petitioners. On the second floor one room admeasuring 13.6ft. x 9ft. and a tin shed admeasuring 7.6ft. x 12ft. along with a toilet was shown in the site plan. The site plan showed a shop on the ground floor in the possession of a tenant Manohar Lal, which was required for the residential purposes of the family of the petitioners.

(2.) The case was put to trial and after appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the eviction order was passed. The Trial Court found that the landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties; that a case for bona fide requirement was made out, because although the tenant had refuted the landlords arguments that their family comprised 19 members living in the suit property in addition to five married daughters of petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 3 and visits by married sisters of the petitioners, but the tenant's having admitted that at least eight adult members were residing in the property, the Trial Court found that even for eight adult members, the accommodation available to the petitioners in the suit property was insufficient to meet their requirements. The Trial Court was further of the view that even for family of petitioner No.1 and his wife, his two sons with their wives and four grand children and petitioner No.2 his daughter and two children the accommodation available with the eviction-petitioners was insufficient. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Trial Court found that the case for bona fide requirement was made out and an eviction order with respect to the tenanted premises was passed.

(3.) The tenant had argued that the three rooms on the ground floor were big enough to be converted for the purposes of residence; that two separate rooms on the ground floor admeasuring 10ft. x 8ft. each were conjoined into one big room of 20ft. x 8ft., therefore, thereby creating an artificial paucity of accommodation. However, the Trial Court took into account the cross-examination of RW-1 in which the latter had admitted that this conversion was done about 15-20 years ago, hence it would have no bearing upon the eviction proceedings. Furthermore, the room admeasuring 10ft. x 8ft. having an area of less than 100 sq.ft. could not have been used as a living room, accordingly it was held that the petitioners had rightly converted the two rooms into one decent size room having habitable area. The site plan filed by the petitioners was admitted by the tenant to be correct. The tenant did not file any counter site plan. Accordingly the accommodation contended by the landlords, to be available to them was found to be correct.