PARAMJEET SINGH BHATIA Vs. INDERJEET SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision against an order passed on 26.4.1994 by Shri A.S. Yadav, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi allowing the eviction petition preferred by landlady respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ordering petitioner's eviction from the premises.

(2.) Petitioner's eviction was sought from residential premises, namely. 26-B, Pocket GG.1, 1st Floor, Vikaspuri, New Delhi by the respondent landlady on the ground that she had given this flat on rent at the rate of Rs. 650.00 p.m. on the basis of a written agreement dated 13.1.1984 though the tenant was paying the rent at the rate of Rs.600.00 p.m. The same was now, required by her bonafide for her own residence and for the residence of her family members. She had no other suitable residential accommodation available to her except a tenanted quarter No.33. T.T. Place, Bangla Sahib Road, New Delhi, which had been allotted to her hy the Government. She wanted now to reside in the flat owned by her because she had to pay a sum of Rs.600.00 p.m. to the department and in addition she is also deprived of House Rent Allowance to which she would otherwise be entitled in case she would reside in her own properly. She also stated in the petition that her financial circumstances were not such to afford for such financial loss since she was obliged to pay Rs.230/ p.m., towards repayment of loan which she had taken from the department. According to her she had now found that facilities in the vicinity where her flat was located were more as compared to the place where the allotted quarter was located. It was stated that her family consisted of herself, her husband, a son and a daughter who were undergoing studies in 2nd and 6th standard respectively. She had also relations in Delhi from in laws side who used to keep on visiting her. Thus, she required the premises for her own use and occupation.

(3.) The tenant sought leave which was granted and he resisted the petition for eviction by filing a reply. The tenant did not dispute that the premises were owned by the respondent landlady and the same were let out for residence. The claim for personal use was contested on the ground that there was no change in the circumstances from the date when the premises were let out to the tenant. When premises were let out the landlady was residing with her family in the same quarter and rather it was more convenient for her to continue residing in the allotted quarter since it was quite near to the place of her posting. From the premises in question it would be more inconvenient to the respondent landlady to attend to her duties in the hospital. She was comfortably residing in the allotted quarter which was quite close to Connaught Place whereas the premises in question were located far away. Thus, according to the petitioner his eviction had been sought with malafide object of getting the rent enhanced.