SUBHASH CHAND Vs. CHAMELI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the judgment dated September 1,1989 of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The learned Judge allowed the petition of the respondent under Section 14(1 )(e) read with Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act and granted eviction from the tenanted premises.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant in the demised premises, which was let out to him for residential purposes and it was pleaded that the same were required for the bonafide need of the respondent for his own residence and also for the residence of her family members dependent on her. It was further alleged that the respondent had no other reasonably suitable accommodation available to her in Delhi. The family of the respondent consists of herself, her husband, three daughters, one son, daughter-in-law and two grand sons. The husband was employed as Daftri in the Ministry of Commerce and was getting a salary of about Rs. 900.00 per month and it is stated that he has since retired from service. The eldest daughter of the respondent is married and it is alleged that she is living with her family with the respondent in the demised premises. The second daughter of the respondent is also married but she had not yet gone to the house of her husband at the time of filing of the petition. The third daughter was only 10 years of age at that time. Similarly, the son of the respondent is married and has a wife and child. The son along with his family is living with the respondent in the property. The averment is made that the accommodation, which has been available to the respondent consisted of only one room and it was not sufficient for the residential need of the respondent and her family. Therefore, a decree for eviction was prayed for.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant filed written statement wherein he took the usual pleas that the petition was not maintainable as same had been filed with sole motive of getting the rent enhanced, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, that the respondent had never resided in Delhi or ever occupied any portion of the property and, therefore, the need of the respondent could not be held to be bonafide. It was also pleaded by the petitioner that one Suraj Nath was earlier occupying the constructed portion on the first floor for the last 6- 7 months was now in occupation of one Ram Bilas as a tenant. Therefore, it was argued that if the respondent was really in need of the demised premises she would not have let out a room which was let to AmirChand or Ram Bilas immediately prior to the filing of the petition. The parties led their respective evidence.