K B BAKAYA Vs. PAMELA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision against an order passed on 3.2.1994 by Shri, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi allowing respondent's petition for eviction filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') ordering petitioner's eviction from a residential premises.

(2.) On 7th July, 1989 the petition for eviction was filed by the respondent landlady against the petitioner tenant seeking his eviction on the ground that the premises in question comprising 2 bed rooms, one drawing-cum-dining room, two bath rooms, a kitchen, open verandah on front as well as on back, a store and a stair case, on the ground floor in building No. G-59, Lajpat Nagar III, New Delhi are required bonafide by her for her residence and for the residence of the members of her family, dependent upon her for the purpose of residence. It was alleged that she was in occupation of two bed rooms, drawing-cum-dining room, a kitchen, two bath rooms in the first floor and a small barsati room on the second floor of the building, which accommodation was not sufficient for her requirements. She being a practising advocate and a person of status and her husband being a corporate personal manager in a public limited company required separate drawing cum dining room. In addition petitioner required a personal office as an advocate and a separate room for her library. One bed room was required by her and her husband. One bed room for her son, who was aged about 16 years at the time of filing the petition. The son also required one room for study and another room for installation of a computer. In addition to these it was alleged that one room was required for a servant, one room as a store and one room for guests. Respondent claimed that she had no other reasonably suitable accommodation available for her. Thus, the tenant's eviction was sought for her bonafide requirements. The tenant sought leave, which was granted and in his reply disputed vehemently the grounds as alleged by the landlady. It was alleged that the need was highly exaggarated. Neither the respondent was a practising advocate, nor her requirement was to the extent, as had been projected by her. She was comfortably staying in the first floor of the building which was also suitable for her and other members of the family. Petitioner challenged the maintability of the petition alleging that premises were not residential since the same were also being used by him for commercial purposes. Malafides were imputed in seeking his eviction on the ground that the respondent had concealed the accommodation available with her. She was desparately seeking petitioner's eviction with a view to let out the premises on higher rent or to coerce the petitioner to agree to pay higher rent. Another ground urged was that the petition was not maintainable since eviction had been sought from a part of the tenanted premises. He was also in enjoyment of the open front lawn on the ground floor from which eviction had not been sought.

(3.) The Controller accepted the respondent's version that the premises were required bonafide by her for her own use and occupation. It was also held that the premises were let out for residential purpose and the petition was not bad for partial eviction rather eviction had been sought for the entire tenanted premises. It is this order which is under challenge by the tenant.