MADAN MOHAN KHULLAR Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner/tenant on grounds of bona fide requirement under section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as the said Act). The tenanted premise consists of entire ground floor of property bearing no D-16, Hauz Khas, New Delhi which was let out for residential purposes to the petitioner at Rs 600/- per month. The ground floor comprises of two rooms, verandah, kitchen and toilet situated in the front and two rooms with a verandah, toilet and store on the rear side. The family of the respondent consists of himself and his wife and two sons. The elder son is married who has in turn two daughters. The second son of the respondent is aged about 27 years and has physical disability. There are two married daughters of the respondent living in Delhi. The other family of the respondent is stated to be two married daughters, one of whom lives in Delhi and the other in Sambalka and continue to visit the respondent. The respondent is aged about 64 years. The respondent also claimed a room for his Puja. The respondent has in occupation of the first floor of the same property consisting of four rooms, one kitchen, one store and two toilets which was stated to be insufficient.

(2.) The petition was contested by the petitioner and one of the defences inter alia raised is that in the month of June,1980, the elder son of the respondent completed his engineering from IIT and was expected to do consultancy business. The premises were stated to have been let out in 1964 in respect of the front side and thereafter in 1976 the back side was also let out. The respondent claimed that he approached the petitioner to permit commercial user of the ground floor of the tenanted premises and thus the purpose of letting was changed from residential to residential cum commercial whereby the rent was increased from Rs 540/- to Rs 600/- per month. The son however did not carry on consultancy business and the second son of the petitioner joined legal profession and required accommodation for his profession/business. The second son was also stated to be doing the business of sale and purchase of cars apart from legal profession from the tenanted premises. Since purpose of letting was residential cum commercial, the eviction from the tenanted premises could not be sought on grounds of bona fide requirement. The petitioner was also stated to be having accommodation and property at 17, Central Lane, Bengali Market, Delhi where 10 rooms were available to the petitioner. Thus the petitioner had sufficient residential accommodation.

(3.) The evidence was recorded and the eviction petition has been allowed by the impugned order dated 17.11.2004