H T PRIMLANI Vs. SHANTA MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by Shri H.T. Primlani, (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the Act) against the order dated 23rd February, 1994 passed by Shri M.K. Gupta, Additional Rent Controller whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller accepted the eviction petition filed by Smt. Shanta Malhotra (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Act and passed the eviction order against the tenant.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the landlady filed the eviction petition under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act seeking eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises comprising of two bed rooms with attached bath rooms one drawing-cum-dining room, one kitchen, open varandah, open terrace on the ground floor of the house bearing No.C-50, Defence Colony, New Delhi which was let out to the tenant by the husband of the landlady on 1st March, 1978. The husband of the landlady died on 16th August, 1988 and as per averments made in the eviction petition, the landlady inherited the suit premises under the Will dated 8th February, 1988. It was further stated by the landlady that the ground floor had been let out to her elder son Pankaj Malhotra, who was working as an officer in Indian Oil Corporation and was living with her wife and two school going daughters on the ground floor of the suit premises.

(3.) It is then stated in the eviction petition that the landlady with her younger son namely, Himanshu Malhotra, who is aged about 32 years and is unmarried, was living at Barsati Floor consisting of one room, one bath and a temporary shed and which had been declared dangerous by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and had to be demolished and the said accommodation was not suitable for her residence. It was then stated that the first floor of the suit premises which was in occupation of the tenant was required by the landlady for her own residence and for residence of her younger son who is to be married. It was also stated that the landlady was a widow, an old lady and heart-patient and wanted accommodation for her nurse and servant also. It may be noted here that the landlady had earlier filed another eviction petition bearing No.E-508/91 under Section 14-D of the Act which was dismissed by the learned Additional Rent Controller on the ground that the petition under Section 14-D of the Act was not maintainable and the landlady ought to have filed a petition under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act. The landlady has, however, challanged the order dismissing her petition under Section 14-D of the Act and a civil revision against that order is pending in this Court.