NISHI SHARMA Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent/landlord filed eviction proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant on grounds of bona fide requirement of the premises for residential use of himself and his family. The petitioner filed an application for leave to contest the eviction proceedings and leave was granted by the order dated 22.11.2000. Para-8 of the said order sets out that the basis for the grant of leave was that the claim of the petitioner that the respondent was possessed of an alternative accommodation was disputed by stating that the property in question belong to his mother. Since the status of that property was not clear, leave was so granted. The parties led their evidence and thereafter in terms of order dated 7.8.2002 the eviction petition was allowed in respect of the tenanted premises consisting of the entire floor situated at E- 31, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. The petitioner was granted six months time to vacate the premises.

(2.) A reading of the said order shows that the question of alternative property stated to be available for the residence of the respondent, as alleged by the petitioner, is property No.M-85, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi. The property was found to be in the name of Smt.Phool Rani Mehra, mother of the petitioner. It was held that this property in the name of the mother of the respondent could not be said to be one where the respondent had a legal right of residence. The order records that while seeking eviction from the tenanted premises, the respondent, no doubt, had expressed the desire to keep one room exclusively for his mother, but that was held not to be with any mala fide intent. This was more so in view of the fact that the petitioner while deposing in the witness box, admitted in her cross-examination that the mother of the respondent used to stay six months with the respondent and for the remaining six months she used to stay at the Greater Kailash property with her other son, who was residing there.

(3.) The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Additional Rent Controller, filed the present petition and it kept pending for about a year and a half till it came up for hearing on 26.4.2004 when learned counsel for the petitioner stated on instructions from the petitioner that he wanted to withdraw the revision petition and admitted the bona fide requirement of the respondent, but the petitioner requested for time to vacate the premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated on instructions that according to the petitioner, the respondent was willing to accommodate the petitioner and gave some more time and for that purpose the respondent may be asked to appear in Court so that the time period may be finalised. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 30.4.2004 when the parties appeared in Court and made statements on oath. The petitioner stated that she was not interested in prosecuting the revision petition and would like to withdraw the same. She admitted the bona fide requirement of the respondent and requested for time to vacate the premises upto 31.3.2007. She further undertook to pay damages as per last rental of Rs.900/- per month apart from water and electricity charges. The respondent/landlord agreed not to execute the eviction petition upto the date of 31.3.2007. The order dated 30.4.2004 records the undertaking of the petitioner to vacate the premises by 31.3.2007 and to pay monthly rent. Since the petitioner was depositing the rent in the account of the respondent, the petitioner was directed to deposit the damages in the same manner. On a perusal of the order, this Court also found that a bona fide requirement case had been made out. The revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn.