INDER MANI Vs. CHANDER PATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the eviction order dated January 30, 1984 of Shri B.B. Chaudhary, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, made on the ground of eviction covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) THE findings of the Additional Rent Controller that Chander Pati Devi was the owner-landlady of the demised premises and the premises had been let out for residential purpose had not been challenged before me. Ex-AWI/1 is the map of the property in question in which the petitioner is a tenant occupying two rooms accommodtion on the second floor of the property bearing No. 67-D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. The petitioner has been a tenant since 1962. It is also indeed, not disputed before me that the ground floor of the said house is meant for commercial purpose and the landlady was living with her family members on the first floor of the aforesaid property. The landlady had set up the case that she and her family members were in possession of four rooms accommodation besides store and kitchen on the first floor and keeping in view the number of family members and their way of living and their social status, the accommodation already available with them was totally insufficient. In the mezzanine floor there are two sets comprising of one room, kitchen and bath each. Each room measures 13'X11'-4-1/2". It was stated by Ganga Bishan, AW2, son of the landlady tthat the roof of the said mezzanine floor is only 6'. No suggestion in cross-examination was given that the roof of the said mezzanine was more than 6' height. Although Inder Mani petitioner-tenant remained silent on this aspect of the case, yet her son Surinder Kumar as RW2 stated that the height was of 7'. It is admitted case that two different tenants were occupying the said mezzanine accommodation and during the pendency of the eviction case the landlady came into vacant possession of the said mezzanine accommodation also. It was stated by her son Ganga Bishan that the said mezzanine are being used for purposes of storage as they are not fit for comfortable living by the landlady and her family members. The barsati at the top floor of the house is also with the tenant.

(3.) THE Additional Rent Controller, however, had given a firm finding that keeping in view the number of family members of the landlady, the accommodation of six rooms on the first floor was not reasonably suitable and the mezzanine rooms could not be treated as proper living rooms so as to be taken into consideration while assessing the need of the landlady and her family members for additional residential accommodation. It was also held by the Additional Rent Controller that there is no proof that landlady was actuated by any ulterior or mala fide intention in seeking eviction of the tenant. He particularly made reference to the testimony of the petitioner-tenant wherein it was admitted by her that at no point of time the landlady had asked for any increase in rent and rather when the landlady asked the petitioner to vacate the premises it was the petitioner who offered to enhance the rent which offer was not accepted by the landlady and she insisted on the tenant vacating the premises. However, during the pendency of the civil revision, the landlady had died leaving behind her husband, four sons and three daughters. The petitioner had given an application for bringing on record all the legal heirs of the deceased landlady, but only Anil Prakash Gupta and Ajay, the two sons of landlady, came forward and filed reply in which they took the plea that the landlady had executed a registered-will bequeathing the property in question in their favour and thus, they alone were entitled to be substituted in place of deceased landlady-respondent as legal representatives. Counsel for the petitioner agreed to substitution of these two sons of landlady in whose favour the will has been executed, as legal representatives of the said landlady for decision of this revision petition. A photocopy of the will also has been placed on the record and it is agreed that contents of the will may be seen for deciding this civil revision. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that even in the contents of the will it is mentioned that there are six rooms on the first floor and as now only two sons of the landlady are the owners-landlords of the demised premises, so they should be considered to be in possession of reasonably suitable residential accommodation and it be held that they no longer bonafide require any additional accommodation. Counsel for the petitioner also made an offer which offer was also part of the grounds of revision that the petitioner is willing to surrender the demised premises and take the tenancy of the said two mezzanine rooms with kitchen and bath on the same terms of tenancy on which petitioner is holding the demised premises.