LAWS(DLH)-1986-2-49

SHAUKAT BANO Vs. UP CO OPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED

Decided On February 17, 1986
SHAUKAT BANO Appellant
V/S
UP CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mst. Shaukat Bano, the landlady, has filed this revision petition against the order of the Controller, dated May 9, 1985 dismissing her application for eviction of the tenant (respondent herein).

(2.) Smt. Sushila Devi was the owner of the property No. P-13, N.D.S.E. Part II, New Delhi. She let out its ground floor to the respondent, U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. on a monthly rent of Rs. 725.00 vide lease deed dated July 1, 1969. Afterwards she sold this property to the petitioner by means of a sale deed dated March 30, 1970. The petitioner consequently became the landlady.

(3.) On August 25, 1980 she brought a petition seeking eviction of the tenant from the said premises. According to the averments made in the petitioner she was the owner of the premises and the same had been let out only for residential purpose. She was living in her husband's house No. C-165, Defence Colony, New Delhi. Her husband was an old patient of cancer, and had to spend lakhs of rupees for his treatment in foreign countries. To raise funds for his treatment and to pay his debts her husband had entered into an agreement with one Raj Kumar to sell his Defence Colony house for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs and was required to deliver the vacant possession of the said house to the vendee at the time of the registration of the sale deed. The said accommodation, therefore, was not reasonably suitable and the petitioner bonafide required the premises in dispute for accommodation as residence for herself and members of her family. Latern she amended the petition and averred that the earlier agreement did not materiali and her husband had entered into another agreement to sell his Defence Colony house to M/s. Consolidated Aerials (P) Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 7,50,000.00 and had handed over the actual posseision of the portion of the said property which was in his possession and she and her family members had now shifted to the second floor of the property in dispute which accommodation was not reasonably suitable due to extreme heat and cold and her husband was feeling very difficult to live there because of the ailment of cancer.