RAJWANTI DEVI Vs. S. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the petitioners against the impugned judgment of Shri R.K. Sharma, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing the petition of the petitioners filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') for an order of eviction in their favour and against the respondent in respect of the premises comprising one room, one kitchen and common bath room and latrine on the second floor of the property bearing municipal No. B-6/13, Model Town, Delhi as shown red in the site plan attached to the petition. The premises were let out to the respondent by one Som Nath some time in the year 1975 at the monthly rent of Rs. 185/-. The petitioners in their petition for eviction had stated that the property, including the premises in dispute, was purchased by Smt. Rajwanti Devi petitioner No. 1, from Som Nath in the year 1978 and the respondent became a tenant under petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 was joined as a co-petitioner on the allegation that he had been recovering rent on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 who is his wife, from the respondent. The case of the petitioner has been that the premises were let out to the respondent for residential purposes and that the same were bonafide required by petitioner No. 1 for residence for her family. The petitioners have alleged that besides two of them, the husband and wife, they have four children including a daughter and three sons who are all school-going and that besides them their old mother also resides with them and the accommodation in their possession was not sufficient to meet their requirement. The petitioners have in their possession two rooms on the first floor of the same building besides a kitchen and a toilet. It was pleaded by the petitioner that their children were of small ages when the premises were purchased by the petitioner No. 1 from Som Nath in the year 1978. They had let out the premises consisting of one room and the common use of latrine and bath room to one Sushil at a monthly rent of Rs. 225/- some time in the year 1979 i.e. after about one year of the purchase of the property by petitioner No. 1 as at that time the children of the petitioners were quite young and the petitioners were able to manage with their present accommodation. However, the children of the petitioners have now grown up and the financial status of the family has also gone up and they require the premises in question for their own occupation.

(2.) THE respondent contested the petition. It was pleaded that the premises were taken by the respondent from Som Nath for residential-cum-commercial purposes and further that he has been using the same for doing repair job as mechanic for scooters and motor cycles besides using the premises as a residence for his family. It was denied that the petitioners required the premises bonafide for their personal residence. The learned Controller found that the petitioners had let out one room on the second floor of the building to said Sushil four or five years prior to the filing of the eviction petition by the petitioners. He took the view that there has been no substantial change in the family of the petitioner on the basis of which it could be said that the petitioners bonafide required the premises for their own occupation. It was also found that the mother of petitioner No. 2 had died during the pendency of the eviction petition before the Controller and for that reason also it could not be said that the requirement of the petitioners as regards the extent of accommodation had increased since 1979. He accordingly dismissed the eviction petition of the petitioners.