GOODWILL INDIA LIMITED Vs. A K ALIKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the order daied August 25, 1984, of Smt. Manju Goel, Rent Controller, by which she had dismissed the eviction petition brought by the petitioner on the ground of eviction covered by clause (e)of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act)'.

(2.) The Controller has given the findings that the petitioner is proved to be landlady and owner of the premises in qution and on merits she held that the letting purpose of the premises in question is not proved to be residential only and that the petitioner in fact, bonafide does not require the demised premises for occupation for herself or for any family member. She also gave the finding that no family member is financially dependent upon the petitioner. She also held that the petitioner is actuated by avarice as she had been demanding increase of rent from the respondent and bad been getting also increase in rent earlier and on her failure to have the rent increased again, she had filed the present petition on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence.

(3.) The petitioner, who is presently aged about 65 years, is widow since 1970. Her husband was employed as Deputy Director Health Services, Government of India, and she with her husband used to live in the accommodation provided by the Government which was stated to be quite commodious one. The petitioner claims to have purchased the premises in question in the year 1972 after disposing of her small property in Madras and also borrowing some money from the bank against her fixed deposit receipts and also untilised the gratuity and provident fund received on death of her husband. M/s. Riviera Apartments had constructed the multistoreyed building cantaining different flats and the flat in question was purchased by Smt. Saroj Mohini from the builder. As a matter of fact, no sale deed has been executed by the builder in favour of Smt. Saroj Mohini, and only agreement to sell has been executed in her favour and she had also transferred the flat in favour of the petitioner vide agreement, of which copy is Ex. PW4/X2. The possession of the flat has been also given to the petitioner and the said flat stands mutated in the name of the petitioner in the record of the Municipal Corporation and the petitioner has been paying the house-tax also as per letter of the Corporation Ex. AW4/X7. Ex. A.W4/D8 is the letter issued by the builder in favour of the petitioner confirming the transfer of the flat from Smt. Saroj Mohini in her favour. it is not necessary that the petitioner should be full owner of the premises in question in order to be covered by the word 'owner' apperaing in Section 14(1) (e) of the Act. The finding of the Rent Controller that the petitioner is the owner of the flat in question has not been challenged before me even by the learned conusel for the respondent. I affirm the said finding.