TARSEM Vs. RAJNI SIKKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a widow of late Shri Pritam Singh. He was the owner of LIG flat bearing No. 94-B (1st Floor), Block No. FGI, Vikas Puri, Delhi. Shri Pritam Singh died on 21st July, 1991. After the death of Shri Pritam Singh the petitioner herein became the owner/landlord of the property in question. This premises was let out by her late husband for residential purposes to the respondent herein. The tenanted premises consisted of two rooms, kitchen, bath, W.C. and balcony on the first floor. The said premises was let out for residential purpose on 1st March, 1984 vide Memorandum of Agreement renewable later on. This petitioner required the premises in question for her residence. Her family consisted of herself, her two married sons and two married daughters and one unmarried daughter. Her married sons with their wives and children and the unmarried daughter all are living with her. While the married daughters with their families often visit and stay with her. During the life time of her husband, she alongwith her husband and children was residing in Village Raipur Rani, District Ambala. But after her husband's death her children found no future prospects in the village. She, therefore, decided to shift alongwith her children and wanted to settle at Delhi. She wants to live in her own house alongwith her children. In this background the widow filed the petition seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant.

(2.) Respondent in order to contest the petition, applied for the leave to defend. Leave was sought, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner was not the owner of the demised premises. After the death of her husband property devolved upon all the legal heirs of Pritam Singh and not on her alone. The petition suffers for nonjoinder of necessary parties. That she herself never wanted to shift to Delhi, therefore, there was no question of her bonafide requirement. Her married sons have good business at Raipur Rani, District Ambala. There cannot be any justifica- tion for them to leave the business at Raipur Rani and start new business at Delhi. Moreover, accommodation at Delhi being very small was not suitable for her and her family. All members of petitioner's family would not fit in this house.

(3.) That by the impugned order the Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC) granted leave to defend. ARC found that since the petitioner was residing at Raipur Rani, District Ambala with her married sons having lucrative business, therefore, there was no question of her shifting to Delhi. Her need was not bonafide. Moreover, the house at Delhi being an LIG flat it was impracticable for the petitioner and her two married sons alongwith their families to live in a LIG flat. Hence, relying on the decision of Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India, (1991)2 SCC 87, granted the leave. Aggreived by the order, present appeal has been preferred.