SITA RAM VERMA Vs. SARASWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision petitions are directed against the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the Controller) dated 11.4.1989 whereby the three eviction petitions filed by Smt. Saraswati who is the landlady of the property in dispute were disposed of by a common judgment. Civil Revision No. 806/1989 and Civil Revision no. 807/89 are filed by the tenants Trilok Nath Kuadra and Sita Ram Verma and Civil Revision No. 912/1989 is filed by the landlady Smt. Saraswati. The Controller disposed of the three eviction petitions by a common judgment because the three eviction petitions were consolidated and evidence was recorded in only one of the eviction petitions i.e. Eviction Petition no. 134 of 1988.

(2.) The case of the landlady before the Controller in all the three eviction petitions was that the three premises let out to the three tenants in the same building for residence were required bona fide for herself and members of her family dependent upon her. The landlady, therefore, sought their eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) It was submitted that the family of the landlady comprises of herself her husband, mother in law, two sons, one daughter in law and one grand son! She requires two rooms for her mother in law; one to be used as Jiving room, and the other to be used as Pooja room on the ground floor as she could not climb stairs, one room is required by her and her husband, one bed room for the younger son, one bed room for elder son and his wife, one drawing room one dining room, one guest room, one study room and one room for the servant. Initially, she bad stated that the husband of the landlady Dr. R.P. Singh was working as a Professor and Head of Department of Chemistry in University of Delhi. He was appointed as Master of Jubilee Hall for two years and allotted accommodation by Delhi University in Jubilee Hall and after his retirement he would have to surrender that accommodation and thus she would require the demised premises for her own occupation. At a subsequent stage, the eviction petition was amended and it was submitted that the husband of the landlady had already retired and he had vacated the premises at Jubilee Hall and shifted to 10 Cavalry Lines, Delhi i.e. another accommodation temporarily allotted by Delhi University. It was further submitted that a notice had been received by her husband from Delhi University to vacate the premises at 10 Cavalry Lines, Delhi failing which penal rent at 10 times the standard rent will be charged from him. The landlady's husband, therefore, vacated the premises allotted by Delhi University and took first and second floor of house no. 43, Vaishali from one professor G.S.Saharia at a monthly rentofRs.2000.00 . It was further stated that the landlady was a house-wife and her husband having now retired they were unable to pay Rs. 2000.00 per month as rent.