ANAND KUMAR Vs. SHAKUNTLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A 68 years old widow of an Army Officer who died in Chines War in the year 1962, filed an eviction petition under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act). She sought eviction against Mr. Anand Kumar her tenant residing in her House No. A-155. Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi. Eviction was sought on the ground that she needed the premises in question for her residence and also for the residence of her members of the family. Being a war widow she was allotted one room tentament having asbestos sheet roof by the Government in order to rehabilitate her and her family after her husband was killed in Chines War of 1962. The said tentament bears No. C-103, Sainik Sadam Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. She with her family was residing in that house. But now since her children had grown up she found that accommodation not sufficient for herself and for the members of her family. Her family consists of her three sons namely S/ Shri Prem Chand, Praveen Kumar and Pramod Kumar. Prem Chand was married. He died leaving behind his widow and children. Predeceased son's family has been residing with her and dependent upon her for the purpose of residence: After her children grew up and got married, she found that one room accommodation at C-103, Sainik Sadan was not sufficient to accommodate her whole family. Therefore, she sought eviction of the petitioner herein in order to occupy her house where she with her family could be accommodated.

(2.) Her petition was contested by the present, petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds namely, (1) that Anand Kumar was not her tenant. It was his mother Smt. Chanderkanta @ Kanta Rani who was the tenant; (2) That the respondent herein has alternative suitable residential accommodation available i.e. her property bearing No. C-103, Sainik Sadan; (3) That there had not been any change in the family of the landlady nor the accommodation available with her at C-103, Sainik Sadan; (4) That one room set at A-155, Ganesh Nagar had been lying vacant. The same having not been occupied by the landlady, therefore, her need cannot be called bonafide. Moreover, there are four rooms beside kitchen, bath and latrine available at C-103, Sainik Sadan which accommodation is sufficient for the respondent and her family; (5) That Smt. Chandrakanta alias Kanta Rani has already filed a suit for injunction against the present respondent, claiming therein to be the tenant of the premises in question and till such time that suit is decided this petition is not maintainable; (6) that the premises was let out for residentialcum-commercial purpose; (7) Moreover, the married sons of the landlady are financially independent and living separately, hence they are not dependent on her for the purpose of residence; (8) That the eviction has been sought by her with ulterior motive to increase the rent; (9) That she intends to sell this property.

(3.) Respondent herein refuted these averments. She denied that this premises was let out to Smt. Chanderkanta alias Kanta Rani. Moreover, the suit for injunction filed by Smt. Chanderkanta in no way effect her petition filed under Section 14-D of the Act. The house at C-103, Sainik Sadan where she has been residing is not owned by her. That property belongs to Government of India. It was given to her for occupation so that she and her family members after the death other husband may get rehabilitated. It was in this backdrop she per force had to stay in such a small accommodation. She denied having relet this premises after the same was vacated, her requirement is minimum 3 to 4 rooms. Since only one room is available at A- 155, Ganesh Nagar, hence she could not occupy the same. She wants full house. She denied that she wants to increase the rent or sell the house and also denied that there are four rooms at C-103, Sainik Sadan.