TAWAB KHAN Vs. ABNASH KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order passed on 23rd September, 1993 by Shri P.C.Ranga, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, allowing respondent's application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) by ordering his eviction from a residential premises.

(2.) The respondent/landlord sought the eviction of the petitioner/tenant from residential premises, namely, second floor of premises bearing No.1-34, Gurudwara Marg, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi, comprising one barasti room, WC, Kitchen, Balcony and open terrace, as shown in red colour in the plan attached to the eviction petition. The ground seeking eviction was that she as the owner/landlady of the tenanted premises requires the premises for her bona fide use and occupation for her residence and for the residence of her other family members who are dependent upon her. The premises were residential. Neither she nor any other dependent member was having any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation available with them at Delhi. The property had been purchased by her vide sale deed dated 1st July 1960. The premises were not only residential but were also let out as such. According to the terms imposed while granting the lease of the land underneath the premises the same could not be put to any other use other than residential. It was 2- storeyed building with a basement. The basement was meant and is being used for storage purposes and was not habitable. On the ground floor, the accommodation is two bed rooms, drawing, dining and the amenities like WC, bath, kitchen, store, pantry etc. Similar accommodation is available in first floor and at the barsati floor there is a barsati room with WC, kitchen, balcony and open terrace. The first floor was with another tenant Shri C.K.Jain, who has been in its occupation since 1991. The respondent claimed that she was over 60 years of age and her husband was 65 years of age, who has been serving with Jetro, a Japanese Organisation. He retired in 1986 but had been retained as a Consultant on a salary of Rs.3,000.00 per month. She claimed that there were three daughters, all of whom were married and are residing in Delhi. On the question of her requirement, she alleged that she and her husband were in poor state of health for the last two years. They suffer from diabities, Cervical as well as Lumber Spondilitis. She was also having a weak eyesight being patient of Glucoma and hardly in a position to manage the domestic as well as personal affairs. In this background, according to her, they needed some help and it was their youngest daughter who had agreed to look after them provided an independent reasonable suitable living accommodation is made available to her so that her and her husband's life is not adversely affected by joint living. A request was made to the tenant to vacate, who had failed to do so. Since ground floor was occupied by them where one bed room was meant for their use and the other for their guests, there was hardly any independent separate accommodation available to accommodate their youngest married daughter. Therefore, the accommodation on the barsati floor was the most suitable which was required by her since she and her husband wanted the married daughter to look after them in their old age, specially due to their falling health.

(3.) The tenant sought leave which was granted and written statement was filed. The tenant pleaded that need was highly exaggerated. He in fact denied each and every fact alleged by the respondent. He also denied the allegation that respondent was 60 years of age or that her husband was 65 years of age. He admitted that two of the daughters were married but was not aware of the third daughter whether she was married or not. He denied the allegation that respondent and her husband were in poor health or that they require any attendant. According to him, the respondent was having spacious accommodation available with her with one more house in Model Town, Delhi. He also denied that the premises were residential. According to him, he was making commercial use thereof. It was alleged that he was dealing in precious stones and his customers were coming to the suit premises to buy the precious stones.