OM PRAKASH Vs. INDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 5th August, 2004 whereby an Eviction Petition of the respondent under Section 14 (d) read with Section 25-B of DRC Act was allowed.

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for deciding this petition are that the respondent/landlady claimed that she had become widow on 9th October, 1998 on death of her husband. The petitioner was a tenant in respect of two rooms, kitchen, bath room, WC, front and rear verandah on the ground floor of house No. 353, Block-C-1, Yamuna Vihar (front verandah to be used jointly by the landlady and the tenant ). She had one daughter Preeti minocha, aged 5 years and a son Gurpreet Singh, aged 3 years residing with her. She was living at first floor of the same property. She was a Group-D government employee and used to leave her house at 7. 30 am in the morning (her office was around 18 kilometers away from the house), since she had to reach there around 9. 00 am. Her children were studying in nearby school named Lovely Rose Public School. They had to go to school around at 7. 45 am and come back around at 1. 15 pm, in her absence. Both the children were under care of her parents who used to reside at a distance of about one kilometer from her house. Her parents used to take the children to school and receive the children after school and also take care of private tuitions. Since children could not be left at home alone being of young age, she required presence of a close relative of her at the house, who could reside at the ground floor under tenancy. She also stated that she had accommodation of only one bed room and a drawing-cum-dining room apart from kitchen, bath room, etc. Her husband was a gazetted officer and was alloted type-IV accommodation of two bed rooms, one big drawing room, one dining, store, kitchen, bath, latrine with large size verandah, garage and lawn. She was accustomed of living in a spacious accommodation. Her present accommodation was not sufficient in view of the need of her growing age children who required individual study-cum-bed room. She was in a position to engage domestic servant, so that her children could be taken care of but for want of accommodation, was not able to do so. She also required one Pooja room being a religious lady and a guest room to entertain her guests and visitors including her brother who was posted in Bhilai and used to come and visit her but could not stay with her due to paucity of accommodation. She had also a sister who used to come to visit her. She stated that the petitioner was finding it difficult to ask the close relatives to stay and take care of children, because of paucity of accommodation. She further submitted that due to low pressure of water, water supply does not reach first floor and she was not in a position to store water by carrying buckets full of water through the stairs as she had met a road accident and received injuries for which she had received compensation through Lok Adalat. She also could not take her children to CGHS dispensary for which they were entitled as she was not at home at day time. Her children can be taken to CGHS dispensary only by some attendant whose necessity was there. She could not take delivery of LPG gas cylinder or regular 'dak' due to non-availability of domestic servant or adult member at home when petitioner was out to her office. She bonafidely required the ground floor. She had no other alternate or suitable accommodation.

(3.) THE petitioner/tenant contested the Eviction Petition and denied that the landlady required premises bonafidely for her needs. He submitted that during lifetime of petitioner 's husband there were 4 family members and now after his death there are only 3 family members and the accommodation in occupation of landlady was sufficient for her requirement. He also submitted that the landlady in fact was not in occupation of one bed room and one drawing-cum-dining room but she was in occupation of 4 rooms since she had converted rear verandah and front verandah into rooms. She thus had more than sufficient accommodation for herself and family members. She along with her husband were residing at the first floor since 1993. Her parents were living separately and they were not family members of the landlady, neither they were dependent on her for residential need. She cannot afford to occupy the entire house for herself and 2 children and after getting it vacated she may convert the premises into commercial use and let it out. She does not want to accommodate any servant for the children. In fact the children were safer at the first floor than at the ground floor.