RAJINDER PRASHAD SHARMA Vs. CHANAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 3. 3. 2008 whereby an application of the petitioner under section 25b read with section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act seeking leave to defend was dismissed and a decree of eviction was passed against him by the Addl. Rent Controller. The landlady in this case filed an eviction petition submitting that she required the premises i. e. two rooms, latrine-bathroom, open verandah and tin shed kitchen on the ground floor and one room, one store, covered verandah and open space on the first floor for bona fide necessity of herself and her family. Her family consisted of herself, three married sons, namely, Pavitra Singh, Nirmal Singh and Jaipal Singh. The family of Pavitra Singh consisted of him, his wife, one son and two daughters, out of which one was married. Sarvprit Singh, son of Pavitra Singh was going to be married in November, 2006. The family of other son Nirmal Singh consisted of him, his wife, two daughters and one son. The family of Jaipal Singh consisted of him, his wife, two daughters and one son aged 17, 15 and 7 years respectively. Besides this she had two married daughters Nirmal Kaur and pavitra Kaur who used to visit her with their families during vacations. The accommodation in occupation of the petitioner consisted of two rooms, one covered verandah, one kitchen under stairs, latrine and bath room on first floor; one room, one Barsati, one small kitchen under stairs and toilet on third floor. She also submitted that she was an old aged lady of 87 years and she almost remains sick and she was too weak to climb the stairs. She was living at first floor with her one son Jaipal Singh. The tenanted premises was situated on the ground floor and she, due to her health and inability to climb stairs, had necessity of ground floor. The accommodation available was not sufficient for her family and her family was adjusting in this accommodation with great difficulty. Her grand children were also of grown up age. They were not in a position to share the rooms with their parents and she therefore, required the premises for herself and her family for bona fide necessity.

(2.) THE ownership and relationship of landlord and tenant and purpose of tenancy has not been denied. The tenant also did not deny the extent of family of landlady. However, the tenant took a stand that the landlady had not disclosed the entire accommodation available with her. She did not disclose that two rooms with open space were available to her at a premises opposite to the tenanted premises. It was stated that she had not shown the space in her possession on the second floor of the property. On second floor there was a huge open terrace where she could easily construct one room. She had not disclosed that the Barsati was in fact a room. The landlady was also owner of 22 shops situated on the ground floor of the property, out of these three were in her possession. She had not disclosed that she was owner of House No. 1014, lakshmi Cinema Wali Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi where she was having four rooms and her grandson Sarvpreet Singh was in possession of two rooms and rest of the two rooms were with her. Her married sons had sufficient accommodation for their families. Her daughters used to visit her rarely, may be once in a year. She therefore, needs no guest room. She had not disclosed that she was having two rooms along with latrine bath-room at the back side. Thus she was having surplus accommodation in her possession and there was no bona fide necessity.

(3.) IN response to the application for leave to defend, landlady filed an affidavit submitting that the two rooms which were opposite the tenanted premises were not available to her since they were in possession of another tenant Mr. Bhola Nath. She denied all other averments. Barsati had measurements of 7'10" and 9'8" with ceiling height of 7'. It was not a room but only a Barsati. She also denied that open space at second floor can be converted into a room. She denied that she was owner of 22 shops. She submitted that the property consisted of only 7 shops and she was in possession of only one shop. Rest six shops were under tenancy. Regarding property no. 1014, Lakshmi Cinema Wali Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi she stated that this property was not owned by her. This property earlier belonged to her late husband who during his life time executed a Will dated 20. 11. 89 and according to this Will, she had no title or interest in this property. She denied that sarvprit Singh was living in two rooms in that property. She submitted that the property was in dilapidated condition. Her grandson Sarvprit Singh got married on 18. 11. 2006. He and his wife were living along with her in the property. She also denied that she was in possession of two rooms along with latrine on the ground floor. She stated that the back side was in possession of another tenant known to the respondent.