MAYA DEVI Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the judgment dated 4th February, 1995 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the eviction petition of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') was dismissed. The eviction related to the premises known as House No.5596, Gali No.1, Ward No.XII, New Chandrawal Subzi Mandi, Delhi wherein the respondent was tenant on the basis of oral tenancy prior to the purchase of the premises by the petitioner. The same comprised of one room, one verandah, common latrine on the ground floor which was let out at the monthly rent of Rs.5.00 for residential purposes exclusive of other charges. It was further alleged that the petitioner is a bed ridden woman and is suffering from arthritis for the last many years and her family consisted of herself, her husband, married son, his wife and two children and two married daughters who visit her along with their families. It is stated at the Bar that another child was born to son and his wife during the present proceedings. The husband of the petitioner has since expired. The accommodation available to the petitioner is one room, store on the first floor of House No.5596 which is stated to be not suitable on account of illness of the petitioner. Moreover the need and requirement of the married son and his family was also one of the reasons for filing the eviction petition The respondent applied for grant of leave to defend which was granted and thereafter written statement was filed wherein a plea was taken that the respondent did not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant. However, a plea was raised that the premises were let out to the father of the respondent who used to utilise it for residential as well as commercial purposes. It was further alleged that the petitioner had two rooms on the first floor and one tin shed on the second floor of the premises apart from one big hall and four rooms and courtyard under her tenancy. The following ingredients are laid down to deal with such matters:-

(2.) The issues relating to the ownership and purpose of letting were decided in favour of the petitioner and no meaningful argument has been raised by learned counsel for the respondent to impugn these findings. The plea of bona fide requirement was next considered and the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusions as recorded in paragraphs 19 and 20 which may be reproduced as follows:-

(3.) The learned Controller has obviously misdirected himself and not applied his mind to the merits of the judgments as referred to in paragraph 19. In the case reported as Hargun Das Vs. Rewa Chand 1984 Rajdhani Law Reporter 60 the Court clearly laid down the purpose of the provisions of Section 25-B for granting leave to contest the petition if the facts disclosed in the affidavit of the tenant are as such to disentitle the landlord to obtain an Order of eviction. Paragraph 7 of the judgment may be reproduced as follows:-