PUSHPA WADHAWAN Vs. EXPORTS INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition arises out of a decision of the Additional Rent Controller dated 15.5.1995, dismissing the eviction petition of the petitioner filed by her under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of the premises in dispute, which is situated on a part of a freehold plot of land measuring 1000 sq. yards bearing No. M-9, New Delhi South Extension Scheme Part-II. The said plot was purchased by the petitioner sometimes in February , 1957. It is further stated that two separate portions were constructed, one bearing No. M-9A and the other M-9. The portion M-9A was given by the petitioner on perpetual lease to her son, Arun Wadhawan, who is gainfully employed in the United States of America. That portion was let out by the petitioner's son, Arun to the employers of the husband of the petitioner, who had in turn made the said premises available to the petitioner's husband and the petitioner, i.e., the said premises under the occupation of the petitioner and her husband was rented by petitioner's son, who had the perpetual leasehold rights therein to the employers of petitioner's husband. The petitioner's husband was employed with SAIL and was getting the rent paid for premises No. M-9A to his son, Arun Wadhawan. The said rent was paid by SAIL to Arun Wadhawan, who happens to be an income tax assessee also. The petitioners shifted into those premises No. M-9A and let out the petitioner's property being M-9, N.D.S.E. Part-II, which is the property in dispute. It is the case of the petitioner that her second son, Deepak has also moved in to stay with the petitioner and her husband and on account thereof, those premises have become too small for their needs. It is further stated that the petitioner's husband has since retired and the lease in favour of the said employer is no longer subsisting and the petitioner's son has expressed his desire to settle in India and on account thereof, he needs the premises No. M-9A vacated by the petitioner and her husband. The petitioner let out the premises bearing No. M-9, N.D.S.E., Part-II to the respondent for residential purposes, as evidenced by document AW-6/23 w.e.f. 1.8.1980 at a rental of Rs. 5,500.00 p.m. alongwith service charges of Rs. 3,000.00 p.m. which were increased after three years to Rs. 6,050.00 p.m. as rent and Rs. 3,300.00 p.m. as service charges in the year 1983.

(3.) The petitioner filed the eviction petition on 29.8.1986 as she allegedly required the premises for her occupation as the residence for herself and the members of her family dependant on her. Her family consists of herself, her husband, two sons, two daughters-in-law and four grand children. She further pleaded that she does not own any other reasonably suitable accommodation available at her disposal for the residence of herself her husband, her second son, his wife and children. It was further stated that the husband of the petitioner had taken on rent the premises No. M-9A, N.D.S.E. Part-II wherein she her husband, her son Deepak and his wife and two school going children are staying. It is alleged that the son, Arun has already expressed his desire to come back to India and settle. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has moved the Court for eviction of the respondent.