AMAR NATH VAISH Vs. MEWA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 7.11.1983 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller accepted the bona fide necessity of the respondent landlady and ordered eviction of the petitioner under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The facts of the case, as set out in brief, are as follows:-

(2.) The petitioner had taken on rent first floor premises of House No. 29/5, Shakti Nagar, Delhi consisting of three rooms, close verandah, kitchen, bath, latrine from the respondent landlady. The respondent landlady filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act before the Additional Rent Controller for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the said premises were required by her for her bona fide personal use. In the petition, the respondent contended that her family consisted of herself, her two sons, two daughters-in-law, one grand son, three married daughters and a servant and that one son alongwith his wife and child and one married daughter lived with the respondent and were dependent on her for residence and her other married son and her married daughter visited her frequently and, therefore, the accommodation in her possession was not sufficient to meet her requirement. She further pleaded that she was a patient of Rheumatoid Arthritis with C.A.D. Calcaneal Spur and it was difficult for her to climb the second floor where she was presently residing and was, therefore, in need of the first floor premises which were in occupation of the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner filed leave application to contest the eviction petition which was allowed and since the ownership of the landlady and purpose of letting was not contested, the only dispute that was contested before the learned Rent Controller was the bona fide need of the landlady. The learned Rent Controller considered all the three points namely; (a) who are the dependent members of the landlady; (b) what was the extent of accommodation in actual possession of the landlady; and (c) whether the same was sufficient or not and held that the premises in occupation of the petitioner were bona fide needed by the respondent for her personal use. He further held that one married son and one married daughter were dependent on the respondent for accommodation and that the accommodation presently in her occupation was not sufficient to meet the requirement of all these persons. The learned Rent Controller further held that the ground floor premises were commercial premises and were, therefore, not fit for the landlady for residential purpos. After considering the evidence, he has also held that the landlady, who was suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis needed the first floor premises bona fide.