SAKHI BAI Vs. MAJOR SATISH KUMAR SABHARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 25th March, 1992 of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The learned judge dismissed the application for leave to defend and granted eviction to the respondent under Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in respect of the suit premises i.e. the entire ground floor of property No. 15/16, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.

(2.) . The respondent filed an eviction petition against Shri S.N.Thahriani, the husband of the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement on the allegations that the entire ground floor consisting of two rooms, one kitchen, one bath room-cum- lavoratory, one store besides front and back courtyard in respect of property No.15/16, Old Rajinder Nagar, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed to the petition for eviction was let out to late Shri Thahriani with effect from 1st January, 1974 vide rent agreement dated 30th December, 1973 for a period of 11 months at a monthly rent of Rs.500.00 besides electricity and water charges. The said property was let out for residential purposes and the respondent was the owner/landlord in respect of the same in terms of letter dated 22nd December, 1974 issued by the office of L&DO. The respondent was 56 years of age at the time of filing the petition and it was contended that he could not afford to live either on the first floor or on second floor of the property No.E-7, Lajpat Nagar III, New Delhi as he and his wife suffered from arthritis and similarly was the situation of Barsati floor at the demised premises which were not even reasonably sufficient or suitable for the respondent and his wife. The respondent had been living on the ground floor of the premises at Lajpat Nagar along with two sons and his father. This property was owned by the son of the respondent Shri Brij Mohan Sabharwal who after completing his Masters degree in Dental surgery in December, 1990 wanted to settle down independently in the property at E-7, Lajpat Nagar. It is not in dispute that the said property at Lajpat Nagar was owned by the said son and did not derive from the respondent.

(3.) In an application for leave to defend, it was not disputed that the respondent was the owner and landlord of the suit property. It was also not denied that the premises were let out with effect from 1st January, 1974. The plea was taken in the application that the suit premises were used for residence and office of the husband of the petitioner (since deceased) as he was an Advocate and the tenancy was residential- cum- commercial. However, this plea was not reiterated in the affidavit. The Rent Controller considered the respective pleas of the parties and held that the defence raised was vague and could not be accepted. The premises were held to be residential. The bonafide requirement was next considered and it was noted that neither in the affidavit nor in the application the ages of the respondent and his wife as well as his father were disputed. It was also not disputed that there were only 3 bed rooms on the ground floor of property No.E-7, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi where the respondent was residing at the time of moving the petition for eviction. It was also not denied that the eldest son of the respondent was doing the course of Masters degree in Dental surgery which he has since completed.