PRABHU Vs. K M SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement was filed by the present respondent (Mr.K.M.Sharma). He is stated to be the owner/landlord of the premises bearing No. B-3/16, Model Town, Delhi. This premises was let out to late Shri Sukhbir Singh. After his death his legal heirs are in occupation of the premises in question. The tenanted premises consisted of one room, kitchen, bath and W.C. on the first floor with common stair case. This was let out for residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 75.00 exclusive of electricity and water charges. It had been the case of the respondent/landlord that he purchased the property on 7th December, 1980. The whole of this property was in occupation of various tenants. On the ground floor there are three rooms, besides a godown, a store, bath, two kitchens (unauthorisedly constructed) toilet/W .C. alongwith open courtyard. Besides on the back side there are three shops on the ground floor. These were in occupation of three different tenants. When the petition of eviction was filed on 13th February, 1990 the whole of the ground floor was in occupation of tenants. Three shops were in occupation of S/Shri Krishan Kumar) Madan Mohan Bhanot and Smt. Nathi Devi (who died in 1985). The godown and the store were in occupation of M/s Anand Consumer Coop. Store. One room on the ground floor adjacent to the store was in occupation of Smt.Daya Pandey. Smt.Daya pandey sub-let the same to Shri Krishan Lal alias Kishan Kumar alongwith one unauthorisedly constructed kitchen. Respondent/landlord filed various litigations with the tenants for eviction on various ground namely sub-letting, non-payment of rent, material alteration and addition and on the ground of bonafide requirement. He obtained eviction order against Shri Samey Pal Singh under [Section 14(l)(h)], against Smt.Nathi Devi under [Section 14(l)(b)] and against Smt.Daya Pandey under [Section 14(1) (b)] of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act). It had been the case of the petitioner that inspite of the eviction order having been obtained, the tenants have not vacated the premises in their occupation. The tenanted rooms were still in their possession.

(2.) That he needed the premises for himself and his family. His family consisted of himself, his wife, one aged uncle dependent on him and the servant who was living with him. He works in a nationalised bank as an Officer. His wife works, as Teacher in a Government High School. He has no other suitable residential accommodation with him. For want of accommodation he lives in a rented house. Because of paucity of accommodation his parents, sisters, in-laws and close relations cannot visit him nor live with him. His mother wants to live with him but due to shortage of accommodation he cannot call her to live with him. He requires at least three to four bed rooms to accommodate himself, his wife, his uncle and relations who visit and stay with him.

(3.) This petition was contested by the petitioner herein on the grounds, namely (i) need of the landlord was not bona fide, (ii) he has suitable accommodation with him at F-8/B, Model Town, New Delhi, which he concealed at the time of filing the petition and finally the entire ground floor at B-3/16, Model Town, New Delhi, except one room which is with the LRs of late Shri Krishan Lal, are in his possession. The accommodation on the ground floor has been lying vacant. He has not occupied the same deliberately since March, 1987. He in fact wants the entire ground floor to be converted into commercial complex. The three rooms alleged to be shops are in fact meant for residence. These have illegally been converted into commercial purpose. He should, therefore, first take action against the occupants of those three rooms (shops). Moreover, possession of godown and the store on the ground floor has already been handed over to him.