NAND LAL Vs. MUNDRAS DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 2232/2008 allowed, subject to all just exceptions. RC. R. No. 11/2008 and CM No. 2231/2008 this petition has been filed to challenge the order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E-315/07/2000 filed by the respondent against the petitioner whereby the aforesaid eviction petition filed under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (the Act) has been allowed and an eviction order has been passed against the petitioner-tenant from the suit property, that is, first floor of property No. 1205, Gali Samosan, Farash khana, Delhi-11006. Admittedly the respondent is the owner and landlady of the aforesaid premises, wherein, the petitioner is a tenant. The family of the respondent admittedly consists of herself, her husband, three married sons with their wives and five grand children. There is one married daughter living in the same area. The petitioner-tenant raised various submissions. Firstly, it was contended that the purpose of letting was not merely residential but residential-cum-commercial. For this purpose the petitioner desired to rely on a document stated to be a rent agreement executed between the parties on 15. 9. 1985. This document was disputed by the respondent landlady. The petitioner sought, and was granted, permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the said document. Admittedly no secondary evidence was led to prove this document. In fact, the right of the petitioner to lead any other evidence apart from producing himself as a witness was closed by the learned ARC and that order was challenged before this Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which also came to be dismissed. On the other hand, the respondent landlady produced various counterfoils of rent receipts according to which the purpose of letting was residential. In this background, in my view the learned ARC has rightly concluded that the purpose of letting was residential and not residential-cum-commercial as pleaded by the petitioner.

(2.) THE next submission of the petitioner was that the accommodation already available with the respondent was sufficient to meet her bona fide needs, particularly taking into account the fact that two other tenants had also been evicted by the respondent in the meantime. I find that the learned ARC has taken note of the fact that two other tenants have been evicted who had in their occupation, one room each. To assess the requirement of the respondent, the learned ARC proceeded on the basis of the plan filed by the petitioner. Even if the plan as filed by the petitioner, is taken to be the correct one, and even if the accommodation that become available to the respondent upon eviction of two other tenants is taken into account, the number of rooms available to the respondent-landlady would, at best be six, whereas the learned ARC has computed the reasonable requirement of the respondent and her family as eight rooms. The relevant extract from the order of the ARC reads as follows:

(3.) I find that the analysis of the ARC with regard to the requirement of the respondent and the availability of accommodation available with her is perfectly reasonable and does not call for interference. The learned ARC has applied well established and recognized principles in the aforesaid computation.