NARINDER KUMAR RASEEN Vs. USHA AWASTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlady filed an eviction petition under Section 14d read with section 25b of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short, the DRC Act") qua property bearing No. B-6/96, IInd Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi where the petitioner is living as a tenant, which was allowed by the learned Additional rent Controller (ARC) vide order dated 14th February 2008 dismissing the application of the petitioner for leave to defend. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order and has preferred this petition under Section 25b (8) of the DRC act.

(2.) THE landlady along with her husband was living at Sector 15, Faridabad, haryana, the house owned by her husband. Her husband filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act against the tenant (the petitioner herein) on the ground that he was not keeping well and wanted to shift to Delhi with his wife for his treatment in AIIMS Hospital, which was nearer to the suit premises. However, the husband of the landlady died during the pendency of the eviction petition itself on 11th March 2007 and thereafter his Lrs withdrew the said petition and the landlady filed the present eviction petition under Section 14 (D) of the DRC Act. She pleaded that after death of her husband, in a family arrangement, she got the property in occupation of tenant to her share while her two sons got the house No. 461, Sector 50 and her sons relinquished their rights in her favour in respect of property in question. She submitted that she was born and brought up in Delhi till 1997, when she shifted to Faridabad at the instance of her sons and husband. She had differences with her daughter-in-laws, even during the lifetime of her deceased husband. After the death of her husband, the attitude of her daughters-in-law has become more unbearable. She did not wish to involve herself in family disputes and wanted to live separately peacefully in her own house in Delhi. She also stated that medical facilities in delhi were far more superior as compared to medical facilities in Faridabad and the AIIMS hospital was nearer to her property. She had no other alternative accommodation of her own in Delhi except the property in question. She needed the property for her own bonafide requirement of living there.

(3.) IN leave to defend application, the petitioner pleaded that the landlady had no intention to shift to the property and just wanted to sell out the same. Her husband during his lifetime sold the ground floor and first floor of the property in question. He alleged that the family arrangement arrived at between the landlady and hers sons was also with a motive to get the eviction order. The physical condition of the landlady was not such so as to live alone. The sole motive was only to evict the petitioner. In the previous petition filed by her husband, it was nowhere mentioned that there were differences between her and her daughters-in-law. The landlady was not suffering from any diseases and she was leading a hail and hearty life in sound state of health. She was having a big bungalow in Faridabad and her sons were well settled and it was not difficult for the landlady to commute to Delhi from Faridabad which was 30 kms away from AIIMS. There were no restrictions on her travel. The needs of the landlady were not bonafide and, therefore, the leave to defend should be granted.