B B SAXENA Vs. MITHLESH RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Mithlesh Rani instituted an eviction petition under 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 premises No.67, Block F, Kalkaji, New Delhi on the ground that the tenancy premises was required bona fide by the landlady who was also the owner of the premises for the residence of herself and her family members. The petitioner herein is a tenant with respect to the entire premises bearing No.F-67, Kalkaji, New Delhi comprising three rooms, latrine, kitchen, bath and inner and outer courtyards,varandahs etc. The petitioner herein is an old tenant in the premises. The premises was earlier owned by Shri J.C.Taneja who had inducted the petitioner as a tenant in the premises. After the death of J.C.Taneja his son K.C.Taneja sold the premises to the respondent landlady vide registered sale deed dated 7th June 1985. The eviction petition was instituted in August 1990. After recording evidence of the parties the learned Addl. Rent Controller passed the impugned order dated 2nd November 1993 allowing the eviction petition of the landlady and granting six months' time to the tenant to vacate the premises in view of provisions of Section 14(7) of the Act.

(2.) The case of the respondent landlady in the eviction petition is that in view of the sale deed dated 7th June 1985 she is the owner of the tenancy premises. The landlady at the time of institution of the eviction petition as also till now has been residing alongwith her family in portion A of House No.E-119, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The said House No.E-119, Kalkaji, New Delhi is built on a plot of land measuring 200 sq.yds. The husband of the petitioner and his elder brother Rajender Das inherited the said house jointly. They partitioned the same between themselves by virtue of a mutual agreement dated 11th My 1982 into two equal portions comprising 100 sq. yds. each. The portion falling to the share of the husband of the landlady is described as portion A while the portion falling to the share of the elder brother of the husband of the landlady is described as portion B. It is further stated that there is a partition wall running through and through the two portions which separates the two portions completely. Both the parties are in occupation of their respective portions and are enjoying the same to the exclusion of the other party. The landlady filed a plan of property, i.e. House No.E-119, Kalkaji, New Delhi clearly showing the portion falling to the share of her husband as also the portion falling to the share of her husband's elder brother. In portion A in the said house which fell to the share of the landlady's husband there is only one room having a pucca roof. The size of the room is 14'6" x 9'11". The rest of the accommodation in the said portion consists of only small kotharies having asbestos sheet roofs. These are three kotharies measuring 14'6" x 7', 9'10" x 6'7" and 8'2" x 9'3". The height of these kotharies is also stated to be quite low and in view of the use of asbestos sheet the height gets reduced because of the slant provided in the roofing. Besides the kotharies there is a kitchen of the height of 7' x 6' having asbestos sheet roof and low height. The family of the landlady consists of her husband who is a practicing advocate and three sons who were stated to be of the age of 26 years, 20 years and 19 years at the time of institution of the eviction petition in the year 1990. The landlady has a daughter who was aged 25 years at that time. It is stated at the Bar that the eldest son had been married in the meantime. The husband of the landlady uses the only room which has a pucca roof for purposes of his office as an advocate. He also sleeps in t he said room. During the day time when the husband is away to Courts, the said room is used as a drawing room also. Because of the compulsion of non-availability of any other alternative accommodation the family of the respondent landlady is using the rest of the accommodation for its residence. On account of unsuitability and paucity of accommodation it is stated that the family is suffering great hardship and, therefore, the eviction of the petitioner tenant from the property in suit was sought.

(3.) In the written statement the tenant raised various pleas including that the landlady was not the owner of the tenancy premises, the tenancy had not been duly terminated, the petition had been filed with the object of pressurising the tenant to increase rent. It was stated by the tenant that the landlady was having five rooms, W.C., bath and kitchen available to her in House No.E-119, Kalkaji, New Delhi. According to the tenant the eldest son of the landlady was not residing with her and had shifted elsewhere. In order to pressurise the tenant to vacate the premises the landlady and/or her husband were responsible for involving the tenant in several false cases filed in Delhi and outside Delhi. The tenant denied the partition between husband of the landlady and his elder brother regarding House No.E-119, Kalkaji, New Delhi. According to the tenant the entire said house was available to he landlady.