J.D. TYTLER NURSERY SCHOOL Vs. AMARJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.8.2015 wherein the application filed by the tenant (J.D. Tytler Nursery School) seeking leave to defend in a pending eviction petition filed by the landlady Amarjeet Kaur under Sec. 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been dismissed. The tenant is aggrieved by this finding.

(2.) Record discloses that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlady on the ground of bona fide necessity. The fact that she is the owner of the suit property is not disputed. She had inherited that property from her father Manmohan Singh along with other her siblings but thereafter they had relinquished their shares in favour of the landlady. She is the owner of the suit property; even presuming that she is a co -owner of the property she can maintain an eviction petition. This position is not disputed. Relationship of landlady and tenant is also not in dispute. This Court thus need not to delve any further into this aspect.

(3.) The suit property is an area measuring approximately 1100 sq. feet bearing municipal no.875 -A, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The suit property was let out for the purpose of running a school. The letting out had taken place 20 years ago. In the eviction petition it had been disclosed that the school had stopped running from the aforenoted premises i.e. the purpose for which it had been let out and the employees of the tenant are alone using a portion of the same against the consent of the landlady. The rent is Rs.1452/ - per month. The bona fide need of the landlady has been described in para 18 of the eviction petition. In this paragraph it has been stated that the landlady has a daughter who had been married to Gagandeep Singh in 2006 but due to matrimonial disputes her marriage came to an end. She got remarried but in spite of having been blessed with a daughter the second matrimonial life of the daughter of the petitioner also did not survive and she had to necessarily separate from her estranged husband. The daughter and the granddaughter of the landlady are presently living with the family of the landlady. The landlady also has a son. He got married in July 2014 and the newly married couple started living in the drawing cum dining room which at present is used as bed room by the petitioner's son and daughter -in -law. The present accommodation with the landlady is insufficient to accommodate the entire family. Attention has been drawn to the site plan where the landlady is presently living. This property is at 18/27, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. This accommodation has been inherited by the husband of the landlady from his line of inheritance. The landlady and her family are in occupation of the second floor. The ground floor, first floor and the third floor of the property are in the occupation of the other brothers/siblings of husband of the landlady. The second floor accommodation comprises of three rooms of which room at 'A' is in the occupation of the daughter and the granddaughter of the landlady. Room 'B' is in the occupation of the landlady and her husband. Room 'C' which is drawing cum dining room is presently used as bed room by the newly married son of the landlady and his wife. The size of this room is 13.4 x 13 sq.feet and is similar to the size of the room occupied by the daughter and grand -daughter of the landlady. There is no other accommodation available with the landlady. There is one common toilet and a kitchen with a front balcony. Further averments in the eviction petition disclose that because of stubborn nature of the daughter -in -law of the landlady which is not only rude but much beyond that stage and is at all the times passing sarcastic remarks not only against her sister -in -law (who is already estranged from her husband) but against the entire family; there is no hope of any improvement in her conduct; it has in these circumstances become almost impossible for the landlady and her family to get her son and daughter -in -law to be accommodated in the same accommodation. Her daughter -in -law has become insultive in more ways than one. Accordingly, the need of the landlady in the present petition is to separate her son and daughter -in -law from the family and to settle them in the suit property in order that the landlady along with her daughter and grand -daughter can live a peaceful life. This has been detailed in para 18 of the eviction petition. Further averments in this paragraph are to the effect that the accommodation presently available with the landlady (where she is staying) at East Patel Nagar of which the ground floor, first and third floors are in the occupation of the joint family members of the husband of the petitioner namely Manmohan Singh. The second floor is only in their occupation and the details of the accommodation on the second floor have already been noted supra. It is further pointed out that there is only one shop in the suit property (B) i.e. at East Park Road, Karol Bagh which is the place from where the business of the husband of the petitioner (Manmohan Singh) is carried out. He is carrying on the business of agency of sale -purchase of cars under the name and style of 'German Car Company'. The husband of the landlady is in fact struggling to establish his business. The other shops which are on the ground floor i.e. the shop nos.A, C and D are also occupied by the tenants.