KAMAL TANAN NOW Vs. M L VASISHTA NOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Kamal Tanan filed the present eviction petition against the respondent 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) pleading that the suit premises had been let out to the tenant for purposes of residence and the same was required bona fide by her for her own residence. She further pleaded that her husband was due to retire from Army in May 1979 and that she had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in Delhi

(2.) The property in suit namely house no. 16-A/5, W.E.A Karol Bagh New Delhi was owned by late Shri M.L. Malhotra who died in the year 1969, He was survived by his widow, two sons and two daughters. The widow also died in the year 1977. The duaghters filed a suit for partition in this Court on 6th April, 1977 stating that the property in suit had been partitioned between the parties as per Plan attached with the plaint and a decree in terms thereof be passed. This court on 19th September, 1977 passed a decree for partition on the basis of the site plan filed along with the plaint. The property consists of four flats-two are on the ground floor and the remaining two are on the first floor. Portion in the tenancy of the respondent is one of the flats on the ground floor which fell to the share of Smt. Kamal Tanan in the partition. The other flat on the ground floor was occupied by the widow of the original owner Shri M.L. Malhotra. The other sister, namely, Mrs. Bhandula had started residing with her mother in the said flat after the death of Shri M.L.Malhotra. In the partition decree, the two flats on the first floor were allotted to each of the brothers. It is not disputed that both the brothers are settled abroad and have been living abroad for decades. At the time of the partition of the decree, one of the flats on the first floor was vacant which was occupied by Smt. Kamal Tanan and her husband. It was stated that they occupied it as licencees of their brother in whose share the flat fell on partition. The other flat on the first floor fell vacant in October 1977 which was also not let out thereafter and is stated to be in possession and control of the petitioner. Smt. Kamal Tanan, the original petitioner died sometime after the institution of the eviction petition. Her husband was brought on record as her legal representative. Sh. M.L. Vasishta, the tenant also died during the pendency of the eviction petition and his legal representatives were brought on record.'

(3.) The eviction petition was contested on various grounds. The Addl. Rent Controller rejected the challenge to the eviction petition on most of the grounds pleaded by the tenant. However, the eviction petition was dismissed on the ground that the same was not bona fide. In this behalf, the Addl. Rent Controller took into consideration several factors to non-suit the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the various grounds which the Addl. Rent Controller took into consideration to dismiss the eviction petition. Out of the five grounds discussed by the Additional Rent Controller to non-suit the petitioner, I find that the reasoning of the Addl. Rent Controller on four grounds is not sustainable as either it is contrary to record or it is contrary to law. However, the fifth ground alone is sufficient to non-suit the petitoner. I will take up these points one by one hereinafter.