SUKESH VOHRA Vs. SULEKH CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms.Sukesh Vohra, the petitioner an unmarried woman doctor by profession. She was working as doctor in the Health Department of Government of U.K. She is the owner/landlady of premises bearing flat No.A-1/62, Azad Apartments, Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi. The said flat was let out by her to the present resent respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,300.00 . All her family members comprising of her mother sister and brother are residents of Delhi. At London she suffered arthritis of the joints. She experienced that on account of cold weather her arthritis problem aggravated and her conditions of joints deteriorated. She was advised by the specialists in London to live in a warmer climate because cold climate of London would adversely effect on her joints. With a view to settle in India she came in May, 1982 thinking that respondent's rent agreement was going to expire in February, 1983 she would occupy her house. But since the respondent did not vacate her flat hence she went back to London. Because of deteriorating health, she decided to take premature retirement and wanted to settle in India. She applied for eviction of this respondent in August, 1988.

(2.) Leave to contest was granted. In the written statement, this respondent challenged the purpose of letting. According to him the flat in question was let out for composite purpose i.e. residential-cum-commercial. He had been running his business of assembling and repairing electric items in this flat. Moreover, the landlady being a permanent resident of London and owner of a house at London did not require the premises in question. Her requirement was not bonafide. He denied that the rent was Rs. 3,300.00 per month. On these facts the Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) set the case for trial. On behalf of petitioner/landlady as many as two witnesses were examined beside herself. On behalf of the tenant two witnesses were examined. He himself did not step into the witness box.

(3.) The learned ARC by the impugned order dismissed the eviction petition filed by this petitioner primarily for the reason that the premises was let for composite purpose hence provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) were not attracted. Since the premises was used for commercial purpose hence eviction under Section 14(1) could not be granted. Even otherwise, the petitioner did not require the premises bonafide as she had been well settled in London. There was no chance of her coming back to India. The suit premises being on 6th floor and the petitioner having been suffering from arthritis, would not be in a Position to climb the stairs. Availability of lift was considered by the ARC to be irrelevant. That the site plan filed with the petition did not disclose the correct suit premises. For these reasons he dismissed the petition.