CHOTI DEVI Vs. ANAR DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22nd September 2006 of learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC) whereby her eviction petition under Section 14 (l) (e) read with Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act), was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an eviction petition in respect of one room in occupation of respondent on the ground of bona fide requirement of herself and family stating therein that the family of the petitioner consisted of herself, two married sons and one married daughter. The elder son Pawan, of the petitioner was having five daughters aged between 8 to 22 years. Her other son Kailash was having two children aged 9 and 15 years respectively. She submitted that she was in possession of one room on the ground floor, four rooms and a tin shed on the first floor. The room on the ground floor was being used by elder son Pawan for running his business of embroidery work. Out of the four rooms on the first floor, two rooms were in possession of her son Kailash Chand and his family and two rooms were in possession of son Pawan Kumar and his family. The petitioner herself was residing in a rented accommodation of one room on the first floor in the property bearing number 10417, Bagichi Allauddin, Paharganj, Delhi. The accommodation available with the petitioner was highly insufficient to meet the requirement of herself and her family members. The requirement of her family was of seven rooms and she required one room for herself. It was also stated that she was an old lady aged around 70 years, unable to climb stairs and she wanted to reside on the ground floor. She also required one guest room and one study room for school going grandchildren and she required separate room for her growing granddaughters.

(3.) THE respondent in the written statement had taken a stand that the petitioner was not the owner of the property in question and it was the DDA who was the owner of the property. The property was in slum area and the petitioner had not obtained permission to file the eviction petition. Regarding bona fide need it was stated that the sons of the petitioner had been residing separately at different places in Delhi. They were settled at their respective places. The petitioner had never occupied any portion of the property and used to re-let the vacant rooms from time to time at higher rate of rent. The tenant gave instances of one room having got vacated from one Sardarji and re-let at higher rent and another room got vacated from another tenant and not occupied by the petitioner, one room and kitchen got vacated from one Daulat Ram and re-let at higher rent, another room got vacated from another tenant and re-let to one Raju at higher rent and when raju vacated, it was converted to commercial use by the petitioner's elder son Pawan Kumar. It was further submitted that in 1997, an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide necessity filed by the petitioner against a tenant was allowed and possession of the room was taken on 6th October 1999 but the same room was never occupied by the petitioner and was again let out. After making these averments, the tenant admitted in subsequent paragraphs of written statement that two sons of the petitioner namely pawan and Kailash were living on the first floor in four rooms and Mr. Pawan Kumar was doing embroidery work on ground floor. He stated that the petitioner also had a third son Mr. Radhey Shyam, who was living separately.