KISHAN LAL Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case is a tenant, who has suffered an eviction decree under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act as his application for leave to defend was dismissed. The ground taken in the petition by the petitioner is that the learned ARC did not appreciate that the accommodation available with the respondents was sufficient. The respondents were having 153 sq. yards of area and only 08 persons were living in a big house. The need of accommodation as expressed before the learned ARC was not bona fide. His application for leave to defend was wrongly rejected. It is stated that the learned ARC was prejudiced and decided the petition in a pre-decided manner. The other ground taken is that the respondents in the eviction petition took a plea that one of the respondents, aged 34 years, was still unmarried due to lack of accommodation. This was not correct and respondent no. 3 could not be married as there was a criminal case against him.

(2.) A perusal of record would show that the respondents herein had become owner of the property after death of Shri Narain Singh (husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondents no. 2and3) by virtue of a Will left behind by the deceased. The family of respondent no. 2 consisted of his widow mother (respondent no. 1), wife and his four grown up children aged between 14 years and 24 years. Respondent no. 3, who was also co-owner of the premises was a bachelor and it was stated that he could not be married due to insufficient accommodation. Moreover, respondents no. 2 and 3 had three sisters, all married, who used to frequently visit the respondents with their families. The number of family members of the respondents/landlords was not disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner raised the issue of ownership however, this challenge was not accepted by the learned ARC and in the present petition, and the petitioner has not raised this issue. The only issue raised by the petitioner is that the accommodation with the landlords was sufficient for their living purpose and the premises was not bonafidely required by them. The landlord had filed the site plan of both the properties, one in their occupation and the one, which was sought to be evicted. The property in occupation of the landlords/respondents consisted of four habitable rooms apart from one pooja room, one store, one pantry and a kitchen. The premises in occupation of the tenant consisted of two rooms. The learned ARC concluded that the petitioner no. 2 needed accommodation for his widowed mother, his wife, his four grown up children, and for respondent no. 3 who was a bachelor. The total requirement of the landlords therefore, was minimum five bed rooms plus at least a separate guest room, a study room apart from drawing room. Thus the respondents/landlords required nine habitable rooms apart from kitchen latrine and bath-room. Presently they were having only three bed rooms, which was highly insufficient.

(3.) THE factual position is not in dispute. It is apparent that the decision of the learned ARC is not based on conjectures and surmises but on hard facts. The petitioner has miserably failed in showing how the order of the learned Trial Court suffered from any prejudice or was having material irregularity. I find no force in the petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.