LAWS(DLH)-1998-11-55

LAJWANTI KAKKAR Vs. INDIA SULPHACID INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Decided On November 19, 1998
LAJWANTI KAKKAR Appellant
V/S
INDIA SULPHACID INDUSTRIES LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the judgment dated March 30, 1993 passed by Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the eviction petition of the petitioner filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of the property bearing No.K-8, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. Respondent was inducted as a tenant on the entire ground floor except one room 5' x 5' shown in colour blue in the site plan comprising of three bed rooms, one study room, one kitchen, one front verandah and lawn etc. It is alleged that in August, 1984 the respondent handed over vacant and peaceful possession of a room and bath room along with rear passage going from the main gate to the petitioner. The premises were let out to the respondent for residential purposes for the residence of B.N.Khandelwal, Secretary of the respondent company at the relevant time. The eviction petition was moved as the premises were required by the petitioner for her bona fide need for her residence as well as for the residence of her family members. The family comprised of herself, her husband, son S.K.Kakkar, his wife and two children. The petitioner has two other sons Shri Rajinder Kumar Kakkar and Dr.J.K.Kakkar who visit the petitioner along with their family members. There is also a married daughter and her family and it is stated that they also visit the petitioner and their need has to be kept in view while assessing the plea of bona fide requirement. The accommodation in possession of the petitioner is only one bed room with bath and store on the ground floor and one bath room and kitchen on the first floor.

(3.) The petition was contested by the respondent to controvert the allegations of the petitioner and it was stated that the petition was not maintainable and the same had been filed for eviction of the respondent from a part of the tenanted premises. The husband of the petitioner had expressed the desire to raise the construction on the roof in May, 1988 and the tenant B.N.Khandelwal did not object to the commencement of the said construction. It is further alleged that on June 3, 1988 the petitioner, her husband and her two sons namely, Satinder Kumar Kakkar and Rajinder Kumar Kakkar with a show of force entered into one of the rear bed rooms in occupation of B.N.Khandelwal and forcibly pushed their household goods in the said room despite resistance and protests. The petitioner along with her family members committed trespass and occupied the rear bed room with the attached bathroom. The necessary civil and criminal proceedings were commenced by the respondent as a consequence of the alleged action of the petitioner and her family. It was next pleaded that the premises were not required by the petitioner for herself and her family members as they were settled and have been residing in their own house at A-31, Defence Colony, Meerut. The daughter-in-law of the petitioner is employed as a teacher in Meerut and is residing there. The petitioner had never resided in the property in question. The son of the petitioner Satinder Kumar Kakkar along with his family members also resided in Meerut. The other son of the petitioner Rajinder Kumar Kakkar is employed in Meerut and any question of his being posted at Delhi does not arise. Dr.J.K.Kakkar also son of the petitioner is permanently stationed in Shimla. The petitioner's husband retired more than two decade ago and since then has settled in Meerut. Therefore, in view of the above facts the need of the petitioner and her family is neither genuine nor bona fide.