SHRI GURDIAL NAGDEV Vs. SMT. DEVI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Mrs. Devi Bai filed an application for eviction of the petitioner under clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. She stated in her application that the premises which were let out to the tenant were residential premises and were being used by him as such. She is the owner of the said premises and required them for residential purposes for herself and for members of her family dependent upon her. The accommodation at present in their possession was of two main rooms besides store etc. Her family comprised herself, her husband, two sons out of whom one has been married and one unmarried daughter and two married daughters who often visit her. The two-room accommodation was insufficient and she had decided to house her married son in the disputed premises. The learned Addl. Rent Controller by her order dated October 31, 1977, found that the house was let in the year 1962 and it required no evidence to prove that during these 15 years the children of the petitioner have grown in age and have also married. The need of the petitioner for accommodation for her married daughters who visit parent a house cannot be overlooked. The contention of the tenant that the petitioner had four rooms instead of two was not substantiated. The tenant had also alleged in his affidavit that she owned other suitable accommodation. But the learned Addl. Rent Controller found that out of three houses, one was in occupation of the respondent, the other was occupied by his brother and third was the one at present in the occupation of the family. The two shops were not residential at all. Under these circumstances, she held that there was no other vacant accommodation available to the petitioner. She refused to give leave to the tenant to defend, and then proceeded to pass an order for recovery of possession. Hence, this revision by the tenant.

(2.) The first contention that is raised on behalf of the revisioner is that the landlady has not specifically pleaded all the ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) in her application. To be specific, she failed to mention that the premises were let out for residential purpose and that she had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Since the application itself is incompetent for want of the aforesaid particulars, the learned Addl. Rent Controller should have dismissed the application. The learned counsel for the respondent maintained that, if read properly, the application contains all the necessary particulars. Moreover, this point was not taken before the Controller and cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time at this stage.

(3.) I have looked into the application. The landlady mentioned that the premises let out to the respondent are residential and are being used by him for residential purposes. That in other words clearly means that the premises were let out for residential purpose. Though, it is not mentioned that she has no other accommodation but the very fact that the present premises are not sufficient for all the members of the family implies that other accommodation is really not available. There has thus been a sufficient compliance of the requirements of section 14(1)(e). The tenant had sufficient notice of the case set up by the landlady and both the parties knew well the points of controversy between them and no one was taken by surprise. It will be an improper exercise of discretion if he were now permitted to raise this technical objection. Moreover, failure to plead the ingredients does not necessarily result in dismissal of the petition. I, therefore, find no force in this contention. It was also suggested by the petitioner that the premises were let out for commercial purposes which is, it was said, borne out by the allegation in the notice that the residential premises are being used for commercial purposes. But this is belied by the receipt given by the tenant in which he has described the premises as residential. Even in his affidavit he has admitted that the premises were let out for purposes of residence and business both and did not say that they were let out for business purposes only.