SHAKUNTALA RANI Vs. P G RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the present eviction petition u/S. 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act), on the ground that she is a widow and the tenanted premises on the ground floor of the property No, 100, Double Storey, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi was required by her for her residence. At the time of institution of the eviction petition in November 1993, the age of the petitioner was stated to be seventy-six years. It was petitioner's case that she was living alone on the first floor of the'same property where the respondent is the tenant on the ground floor. Apart from her old age, the petitioner was stated to be suffering from various ailments which made it difficult for her to climb to the first floor. Secondly, it was pleaded that the petitioner had only one issue, i.e., a married daughter who was residing with her husband at Rajkot. The husband of the petitioner's daughter is due to retire in Dec., 1995. The petitioner's daughter is to join her at Delhi after the retirement of her husband and look after the petitioner in her old age. Therefore, the accommodation was also required for purposes of the family of the daughter which consists of besides her husband two sons and grand children. The petitioner further pleaded that it was not safe for her to live alone at this old age. Till now, she has been managing through the help and assistance of a maid servant. However, now the daughter and her husband are to join her to look after her in her old age. Thus the eviction was sought on two gronds, i.e., first, for need for ground floor in view of the old age and other ailments of the petitioner and secondly, for the requirement of additional accommodation because the married daughter of the petitioner would be residing with her to look after her in her old age.

(2.) The respondent tenant filed an affidavit praying for leave to contest the eviction petition. It was stated that the requirement of the petitioner for ground floor based on medical reasons was not genuine and secondly it was stated that the petitioner had no daughter nor the requirement of married daughter for additional accommodation could be considered as requirement of the petitioner. The Addl. R.C, vide the impugned order dated 18th April 1995 granted leave to contest on both the questions, i. e., the requirement of the petitioner to live on the ground floor as also the requirement of additional accommodatation to accommodate the married daughter so that she could look after her mother in view of her old age and failing health.

(3.) Taking the second point first, the learned ARC has observed. "There should not be dispute regarding legal proposition that need of married daughter cannot be pleaded by the mother as need of her family member dependent on her". As a proposition of law, I do not think that the ARC was correct in making the said observation. As a general proposition of law, it is settled that requirement of married daughters who come and stay with their parents can be considered while considering the need of the landlord for additional accommodation. Secondly, the facts of the present case show that it is not a case of bare plea that accommodation is required for the married daughter. The ARC should have taken the peculiar facts of the case into consideration before making such an observation.