PADAM CHAND JAIN Vs. VIMAL CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been filed by the landlord aggrieved by the order of dismissal of eviction petition on the ground of bona flde requirement. The main challenge to the impugned order is that Additional Rent Controller in complete disregard to the size of the family, as mentioned in the eviction petition held that the requirement was not bona flde. The Additional Rent Controller has taken into consideration those rooms which were not habitable for the purpose of counting accommodation available in the hand of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the accommodation is required for his wife and himself. The petitioner is 65 years of age, his wife is 59 years of age. They have got one married son, his wife and have two grand sons aged 12 years and 6 years. Mr. Taneja, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has got two married daughters. They are also visiting the petitioner. The petitioner requires one Pooja Room. Mr. Taneja has also filed on record alongwith an affidavit that earlier his son who was unmarried has now got married. He was working with the Armed Forces as Captain. Now, he has sought retirement from the Armed Forces. The discharge certificate has also been brought on record. He says that the second son also requires accommodation to live alongwith his parents. He further stated that second son has also got one child who is two and a half years old.

(2.) On the other hand, Mr. E.X. Joseph, learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the requirements of the petitioner have been met on account of vacation of the premises on the ground floor which was earlier in the occupancy of a tenant. He has further contended that the card pertaining to discharge of son of the petitioner filed on record cannot be relied upon, as the same is not a discharge slip. He further stated that it is a case of comparative hardship and, therefore, has stoutly defended the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller.

(3.) I have heard arguments advanced by both Counsel for the parties. In this case the Site Plan of the property in question is not in dispute. The same is Ex. Public Witness 1 /2. The portion on the ground floor which has come in the hands of the petitioner during the pendency of the petition on account of vacation by the previous tenant there is only one room of the size of 15.10x10 ft. There is verandah and Tin shed and another room shown as 7.6 x 11.6 ft. So, what is available in the hands of petitioner is only one room of size of 15.10 x 6.10 ft. and a room with 7.6 x 11.6 ft. is not really a room which could be said to be habitable. There is no dispute that on the first floor, the petitioner is having only three rooms. The dimensions of the same are 14'.6" x 9 ft., 14'.8" x 7'.6" and 6'.6" x 16'. 10" ft.The room measuring 6'.6" x 16'.10" is, admittedly, used as Pooja Room. That leaves the petitioner with two rooms on the first floor. There is a room on the second floor measuring 16.10x8 ft. That room also cannot be considered to be a room which could be said to be a habitable one. Even if I exclude the requirement of second son who has retired from the Armed Forces, still the accommodation falls short of the requirement of the petitioner as they would be requiring one room for themselves, one room for their married son, one room for their grand children, one room for the visitors and guests. The findings on this score by the Additional Rent Controller are totally contrary to the evidence brought on record. I set aside the impugned order and pass an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Six months' time is granted to the respondent-tenant to vacate the premises.