BINA GUPTA Vs. R K KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 12th November 1996 Shri R.L.Kohli, the respondent herein filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner on the ground contained in clause (e) to the proviso to Sub- section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the present petitioner from the portion in her tenancy on the first floor of property No.A-5, Greater Kailash Enclave-1, New Delhi. The premises was let out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.3000.00 vide agreement EX.AW 1/2 dated 21/8/1984. As per the case of the respondent landlord he is the owner of property No. A-5, Greater Kailash Enclave-1, New Delhi. The property was constructed, during the period 1971 to 1973. The entire ground floor of the property consists of a front portion having two bed rooms, one pooja-cum-study room, one drawing-cum-dining room with a court-yard besides toilet/bath and kitchen which is in occupation of the respondent/landlord. The back portion of the ground floor consisting of two bedrooms, a drawing-cum-dining room, a bath/toilet and a kitchen is in occupation of a married daughter of the petitioner whose husband works in the merchant navy. The said daughter is having three children. She has been staying in the premises since long and since much prior to the tenancy in favour of the petitioner. The husband of the said daughter remains mostly away on account of his job in the merchant navy and, therefore, the petitioner's daughter is occupying the back portion of the premises. As per the respondent/landlord's own statement he is only charging rent from his said daughter equivalent to taxes that he has to pay and maintenance charges for the portion in her possession. On the first floor of the property the back portion consisting of 3 bed rooms, one drawing-cum-dining room with bath/toilets and one kitchen is in the tenancy of the petitioner. Regarding the front portion on the first floor there is lot of controversy between the parties. According to the respondent/ landlord there is only one barsati while according to the petitiooer/ tenant there are at least three bed rooms available to the respondent/landlord in the said portion.

(2.) The family of the respondent/landlord consists of himself (present age 75 years' bis wife) son of his elder daughter who is admittedly staying with the respondent since his birth and is now about 20 years of age, son of the petitioner S.K.Kohli, his wife and his one son now aged 22 years and a daughter now aged 20 years besides servants. Thus, according to the respondent he has only 2 bed rooms with one pooja-cum-study and one drawing-cum-dining room available to him for a family consisting of 7 members, i.e. himself, his wife, 4 members of his son's family and a grandson (son of a married daughter). He requires the premises in the tenancy of the petitioner herein for residence for himself and his family members dependent upon him for residence.

(3.) In the written statement the petitioner took all possible pleas without any regard for truth. The petitioner denied the ownership of the respondent of the suit premises. She set Up a case that the premises was let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes. It was also stated that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation available with him in the premises in suit for the residence of himself and his family. It was denied that the need of his son and his son's family could be considered because the son was working in Bombay. The tenant averred that the landlord had ample accommodation available with him on the first floor and the petition was mala fide and had been filed with the intent to increase rent. The matter went for trial. Both parties examined a number of witnesses in the course of a protracted trial. Finally the Addl. Rent Controller vide the impugned judgment dated 5/1/1995 allowed the petition and passed an eviction order in favour of the respondent/landlord granting six months' statutory time to the tenant to vacate the premises. The tenant has challenged the said order through the present petition.