VIDYA VATI Vs. HANUMAN PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition for revision under Section 35 of Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (No. XXXVIII of 1952) from the order of the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge dismissing her appeal and maintaining the decision of the trial Court dismissing her suit.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that the Plaintiff who is 50 years old in the owner of the premises bearing No. 3481, situated in Faiz Bazar, opposite Police Station, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The Defendant -Respondent. is the tenant paying monthly rent of Rs. 17 -2 -0. This lady has been residing with her father and nephews. It is stated in the plaint that one of these nephews is of marriageable age and his attitude towards the Plaintiff is not cordial or amiable and he does not like her to continue to stay in the house of her father. She has sought eviction of the Defendant from her house on the ground that these premises are required bona fide by her or as a residence for herself and her two grand daughters and that she has no other suitable accommodation. The issue framed by the trial Court as to whether the Plaintiff bona fide requires the premises in dispute as residence for herself and she has no other suitable accommodation was decided by both the courts against her. The Additional Senior Subordinate Judge expressed the view that to succeed in an ejectment action, the landlord has to prove some need or some necessity for the premises and it does not suffice that she wishes to acquire their possession. He then proceeded to say that the facts of this case suggest that the Plaintiff does not sincerely intend to leave the fold of her family and the requirement of the suit premises professed by her is not genuine. The Respondent has not been represented in this case.

(3.) I think the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge was in error when he laid down a different standard, namely, that the Petitioner "has to prove some need or some necessity for the premises and it does not suffice that she wishes to acquire their possession. In support of this view the learned Senior Subordinate Judge had placed reliance upon Basant Lal Saha v. P.C. Chakarvarty : A.I.R. 1950 Cal 249. In view of the clear enunciation of the law by this Court in the decisions referred to above, I cannot accept the view of the Calcutta High Court in the above case as determining the principles which have to be followed in the present case. I may add that Section 14 of the Act gives tenant a remedy for recovering possession and for re -entering if the premises are not occupied by the landlord as a residence for herself or for her family within two months of obtaining such possession or the premises having been so occupied by her, are, at any time within 2 months of such occupation, re -let in whole or in part to any person other than the evicted tenant.