S P SEHGAL Vs. VIDYA KAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order of Shri V. B. Gupts. Additional Rent Controller Delhi dated 6th August. 1981 whereby he has allowed the amendment peti tion filed by the respondent-landlady for ejectment under Chapter 3-A, Section 25(b) read with Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondent-landlady filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises in House No. 7133, Roop Nagar, Delhi on the ground that she required the premises bona fide for her residence and her family members depending upon her The family of the respondent-landlady comprises of two grown up unmarried daughters, one married daughter, three sons, two of whom are married and a servant and that the portion in occupation of the respondent-landlady in the said house was not sufficient to accommodate the whole family and that she had no other reasonable suitable accommodation in Delhi.

(3.) The respondent-landlady completed her evidence on 20th January, 1981 and thereafter the case was fixed for the evidence of the petitioner-tenant. However, before that on 2nd April, 1981 she moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the petition alleging, inter alia, that after the institution of the suit there had been lot of changes in the circumstances inasmuch as the ground floor portion in the property in suit which was under the tenancy of one Shri J. N. Gupta was vacated by him on 27th March, 1979 and she has shifted to the ground floor. It was also stated that her son-in-law retired from Indian Aluminium Company. Calcutta and the said son-in-law along with his wife and other family members are to shift in Delhi to live with her in her old age. It was also stated that her daughter is seeking admission in Central Education Institute of Delhi and would live with her and that the accommodation available with her was most inadequate and insufficient and with a view to explain the present position regarding accommodation available to her and the manner it was being used, she wanted to amend the petition. The amendment application hied by the respondent-landlady was, however, opposed by the petitioner-tenant: