HARI RAM SHARMA Vs. NARAINI DEVI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 1876/2008 allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM (M) No. 188/2008 and CM No. 1875/2008 this petition has been filed to impugn the order passed by the learned additional Rent Controller (ARC), Delhi in E. 462, 463, 464 and 465/07/05 dated 06. 10. 2007, whereby the learned ARC has rejected the leave to defend applications filed by the respective tenants in the four petitions filed under section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act filed by the respondent. The petitioner before me was the respondent/tenant in E. 463/07/05.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the property in question was purchased by the respondent/landlady on 23. 12. 1999 from the previous owner Sh. Ram Jot Vyas. The petitioner and the other tenants were already occupying the different portions in the property in question bearing Ward No. IV, Kucha Latto Shah, Dariba, Delhi-06. The petition was filed in 2005 after waiting of the statutory period of 5 years from the date of purchase. Learned ARC has taken note of the fact that the respondent/landlord has four married sons, two of whom viz. Sh. R. K. Sharma and Sh. Rajkumar Sharma are residing with the respondent with their respective families, while two other sons are residing in separate accommodation with their respective wives. The case made out by the respondent/landlady was that she bona fide needs the accommodation not only for meeting her present needs but also claimed that her two married sons, who are residing in separate accommodations also desire to live with her in her old age. The learned ARC has examined the bonafide need of the respondent even by ignoring the need of the respondent in respect of her two sons not presently residing with her, and on the basis of the need made out and founded upon the family members in fact residing in the portion in her possession. No dispute with regard to the ownership and purpose of letting was raised by three of the tenants and only one tenant raised a dispute with regard to the purpose of letting by contending that the purpose of letting was residential-cum-commercial. The petitioner is not the tenant, who had raised the dispute about the purpose of letting being residential.

(3.) THE requirement of the respondent/landlord and the family was pleaded on the basis that she along with her husband, her two married sons, five granddaughters aged 22 years, 20 years, 18 years, 17 years and 15 years and three grandsons aged 20 years, 18 years and 14 years were residing with her. The bonafide need of the respondent and her family has been discussed in paras 6 to 10 of the impugned order, which read as follows: -