HIRO DEVI Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioners under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in respect of the tenanted premises bearing no.4174, Sarai Jaat, Gali Barna, Pahari Dheeraj, Delhi-6. The respondent claimed ownership of the property in pursuance to a decree of partition passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class on 24.10.1967. The premises consisting of one room and a verandah in question are stated to have been let out to late Sh. Pyare Lal at a monthly rent of Rs 10/- including water and electricity charges for residential purposes and after his demise, the petitioners succeeded to the tenancy rights by operation of law. The respondent claimed bona fide requirement of the premises for the residence of himself and his family members comprising of himself and his wife, four sons, their wives and their sons and grand children, eight in number, in the age group of two to sixteen years. The eviction petition was opposed on practically every ground. Letting purpose was stated to be residential as well commercial as the manufacturing of donas and patals was being carried out in the premises. The property was stated to be a two-storeyed building in the possession of the respondent and his family members. The ground floor was stated to have been converted into shops and godowns. It was alleged that the respondent had other residential accommodation located at Alipur as well as houses bearing no. 4171-73, Sarai Jaat, Gali Barna, Pahari Dheeraj, Delhi-6. The respondent appeared as PW1 and the position about the availability of the other accommodation was explained specifically in the deposition as set out in para 7 of the impugned order. The notices sent for alleged unauthorized construction by the petitioners was also proved.

(2.) The Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the ARC) in terms of the impugned order dated 20.04.2006 has allowed the petition of the respondent. The ARC found that in view of the certified copy of the judgment and decree in the partition suit Ex A, the ownership of the respondent was fully established insofar as the tenanted premises were concerned. Petitioner no.1 during her cross examination admitted to the letting purpose being residential at the inception of the tenancy. Not only that there were only two rooms in their occupation which were hardly sufficient even for the residential purposes of the petitioners. There was no possibility of commercial activity being carried on in the tenanted premises. These conclusions have been derived on the basis of appreciation of evidence and in my considered view cannot be faulted. A further fact insofar as the purpose of letting is concerned, is that another shop no.4099 in the same locality was in fact taken on rent by the petitioners for doing their business as stated by them.

(3.) There was no dispute about the size of the family of the respondent and the extent of accommodation available was hardly sufficient for such a large family. The available accommodation with the respondent is constructed on a plot of 115 square yards consisting of two rooms, two stores on the ground floor, two rooms and two stores and two kitchens along with one bath room on the first floor and two rooms and two stores with two kitchens on the second floor and one room and one store on the third floor. If the size of the family of the respondent would be seen, he would require one room for himself and his wife and four rooms for each of his sons and daughters-in-law. One of the sons in turn has a son who is eleven years old who would require a room. The second son has in turn two sons and a daughter aged 16, 11 and 15 years respectively who would be older now. The sons can share a room but the daughter would require a separate room at this age. The third son also has two sons, aged 13 and 11 years, who would require a room and the fourth son has two sons, aged 4 and 2, who would require a room between themselves. The grand children would thus require five rooms. The total requirement of rooms for the family would be ten rooms apart from the bath room, storage room, drawing-cum-dining room. There is no doubt that even if the accommodation of the petitioners is made available, there would be paucity of accommodation but that cannot be helped. There is no other alternative residential accommodation available with the petitioners as the appreciation of evidence shows that some of the accommodation alleged to be that of the respondent is either not of the respondent or is tenanted premises. As stated above, this aspect has been examined in para 7 of the impugned order.