RAJ RANI Vs. KASHMIRAN MATHUR @ KASHMIRAN SAHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 7th May, 2014 granting leave to defend to the respondents, the petitioner Smt. Raj Rani who filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act prefers the present petition.

(2.) In the eviction petition filed by Raj Rani against Kashmiran Mathur and sons of late G.S. Mathur, Raj Rani stated that she was the sole, exclusive and absolute owner of the property bearing No. 1, Maharaja Lal Lane, Kirpa Narain Marg, Civil Lines popularly known as "Studio Building" forming part of 1, Maharaja Lal Lane vide the sale deeds dated 17th May, 1996, 23rd July, 2001 and the release deed dated 19th January, 1998, all registered documents. The suit property consists of ground floor and first floor which are mutated in the name of Smt. Raj Rani in the records of MCD and she was regularly paying house tax for the suit premises. The respondents were tenant in respect of half portion of the ground floor (Northern side) of the premises known as "Studio Building" and the last paid rent was Rs. 234/- per month. The tenanted premises comprises of three bedrooms on the (Southern side) on the ground floor. Raj Rani and her family were in occupation of three bedrooms one pooja room, one kitchen, toilet at the first floor. The remaining portion of the first floor i.e. one room was with the tenant Shri Girdhari Lal. The family of Raj Rani comprises of herself, her husband, her son aged 30 years, his wife and a grand-daughter besides her unmarried daughter aged 24 years and unmarried niece aged 26 years. The family also has an old servant Ram Bahadur Thapa who requires a separate room. Thus, the requirement of the family was at least of four bedrooms, one drawing room, one dining room, two guest rooms, one study room, one servant room, one pooja room and one office room besides three store rooms. Therefore, the tenanted premises was required bonafidely.

(3.) In the leave to defend application the respondents took the plea of material concealment. It is stated that the site plan was wrong. The accommodation available with the respondents were two bedrooms, one bathroom and one drawing-cum-dining room, one common verandah on the ground floor which is half of the accommodation available on the ground floor and the other half is with another tenant. Raj Rani has in her possession four bedrooms. A site plan was filed by the respondents disputing the site plan filed by Raj Rani. It is stated that there was no tenant in the name of Girdhari Lal on the first floor. Even as per the site plan there was a pooja room on the first floor. There was one room above the first floor on the terrace which was being used as a servant room. The daughter and the niece have one room independent to themselves. The petitioner has a drawing room for visiting guests besides four bedrooms and thus the requirement is not bonafide.