BIMLA DEVI Vs. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 22nd February 2008 passed by learned Rent Controller allowing an eviction petition under Section 14(1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act ( for short, 'the DRC Act') made by the landlady. The petition has been allowed after contest and recording of evidence. Leave to contest was granted to the tenant on the basis of concession made by the landlord.

(2.) The landlady is a widow aged around 73 years of age. She was living on the first floor of the premises bearing No.B-3/38, Safdarjung Enclave with her son, daughter in law and two grandchildren. Because of old age, she also has a permanent domestic servant living in the premises for her care. The premises in occupation of the petitioners are two bedrooms, one drawing cum dinning room kitchen along with a lobby and passage on the ground floor. The premises was let out to one Mr. S.S. Aggarwal on 1st August 1974 and the present petitioners are the legal heirs of Mr. S.S. Aggarwal. The other legal heirs, though were served by a notice of eviction petition, but did not choose to contest the petition. The landlady claimed that the accommodation in her occupation viz three bedrooms, one drawing cum dinning room, kitchen and two toilets and on the first floor one room and a store room and a toilet on the ground floor was falling short for herself and her family. She was not in a position to use the ground floor room as it had no access from the front side of the house and could be accessed only through a spiral staircase on the back side of the house. Due to her old age, she was not able to climb up and down from the spiral stairs. The rest of the accommodation in her possession was highly insufficient for her residence and residence of her family members. The tenant, on the other hand, took a plea that the premises in occupation of the landlady was sufficient to meet requirement of her and her family. The eviction petition was filed because the petitioners had refused to give passage to rear side room from the front side to the landlady since she wanted to keep paying guests in the room in her possession on the ground floor. It was also pleaded that not one but two rooms on the ground floor were in occupation of landlady. One was a big room of 12x25 ft and the other a small room 12x8 ft. It was also stated by the petitioners that the second floor of the premises was let out by the landlady to a company and was being used as a guest house by that company. Son of the landlady was a government employee and had been allotted government accommodation at Noida and he had let out that governmental accommodation and was realizing rent from that accommodation.

(3.) During evidence, the tenant failed to prove if any government accommodation was allotted to landlady's son at all. On the other hand, the landlady categorically proved that no government accommodation was allotted to her son. Thus, these averments about son having been allotted government accommodation were found patently false. The quantum of accommodation was not in dispute except that the tenant described the premises at ground floor as two rooms while the landlady described it as a store and a room. The tenant also stated that there was a tin shed on the third floor which could also be used by the landlady. However, the landlady showed that this tin shed was not worth living as the tin shed was over the water tanks etc.