KAVITA TARA Vs. KARAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Karam Kaur, widow of Shri Moti Ram, resident of 4-A/60, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi felt short of accommodation. She, therefore, filed a petition for eviction as a classified landlord under Section 14-D of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) against this petitioner. Her case as set up in the petition was that the house in question is built on 85 sq. yards of land. Her family consists of three married sons and two married daughters besides one unmarried daughter who is living with her. That daughter is insane. Her each of the three married sons have got their children. At the time of filing the petition, the eldest and middle son had two children each. The youngest had one child but during the pendency of the petition the third son also got another child. The three rooms on the first floor are in occupation other three married sons. On the ground floor there is only one room which is being used by them as drawing room. She alongwith her daughter sleep in that room. She has no spearate room for herself nor any room for the guests, visiting daughters and their family. It was in this background that she sought eviction.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenat in one room on the ground floor of the premises in question. He applied for leave to contest the petition. Leave was granted, primarily on the ground that landlady has sufficient accommodation and that the room which was vacated by another tenant other ground floor instead of using the same for residence was let out to her son for business purposes. This shows her need was not bonafide. Artificial scarcity had been created by the landlady, had her need was genuine she would not have given the room to her son for running business. However, if she required additional accommodation she could re-construct the tenanted premises under the tenancy of the petitioner. Tenanted room has asbestos sheets roof. This room being in dilapidated condition is not habitable.

(3.) Landlady examined her son Mr. Hardesh Nagpal as AW 1. Her son-in-law deposed as AW 2. The petitioner examined only herself as Public Witness 1. After considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, learned Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC) vide the impugned order dated 12th September, 1996 granted decree of eviction against the petitioner with a direction to the petitioner to vacate the premises within two months.