Delhi District Court
Smt. Savita Devi vs Sh. Sachin Gupta on 18 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANDEEP GARG: ADMINISTRATIVE
CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
(CENTRAL) : DELHI
E411/2013
Unique ID No : 02401C0522322013
In the matter of:
Smt. Savita Devi,
W/o Sh. Prem Kumar,
R/o H.No. 2799, Ground Floor,
Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi,
Delhi110007.
....Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Sachin Gupta,
S/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal Gupta,
R/o H.No. 2804, Ground Floor,
Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi110007.
.....Respondents
O R D E R:
1. Vide this order, an application for leave to defend, filed on behalf of the respondent under Section 25B (4) of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act, 1958) seeking leave to contest the present eviction petition is disposed of.
2. The present eviction petition was filed by the petitioner namely E411/2013 Page 1/28 Smt. Savita Devi in respect of the tenanted portion in property no.2804, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi110007. The petitioner is the owner and landlord of the demised premises having purchased the same vide sale deed dated 24.03.2004. It is averred that the respondent was inducted as a tenanted by previous owner vide document dated 01.07.1997. The respondent alongwith his family used to reside in the demised premises comprises of one big hall/room with kitchen therein and adjoining room ad measuring 10' X 9' just continuous to the said portion and bathroom situated on the ground floor for rent of Rs. 50/ per month excluding electricity and water charges which are paid directly to the concerned authorities, but for the last about 78 months has shifted to some other place in Uttam Nagar. The respondent initially showed resistance and ultimately the petitioner has to file a suit for recovery against him before the court of Ld. Judge Small Cause Courts, Delhi and in suit no. 36/2008, in mediation proceedings held on 16.01.2010, the respondent admitted the petitioner as his landlord and owner and paid the rent claimed in the court upto 31st January, 2008 before the court of Sh. Vidya Parkash, the then Ld. Judge Small Causes Court, Delhi. The respondent lastly paid rent on 04.02.2010 before the court E411/2013 Page 2/28 covering the period upto 31.01.2008. The respondent as such is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.02.2008.
3. The premises are residential and were let out for residential purposes by the erstwhile owner to the respondent who had been using the same for the said purpose throughout. The petitioner at present is residing in property no. 2799, which is owned jointly by the husband of the petitioner as well as his elder brother viz. Sh. Naresh Kumar. The said property is built up on an area of 30 sq. yds. and the petitioner, her husband and her younger widowed daughter Smt. Meenakshi with two children are adjusting themselves in the said ground floor portion of said property. The said daughter has been neglected by her inlaws and is now dependent upon the petitioner. The petitioner feels scarcity of accommodation and requires the demised premises bonafidely for her residence as well as for the residence of family members dependent upon her.
4. The family of the petitioner consists of herself; her husband viz. Sh. Prem Kumar; elder son viz. Sh. Shailender Singh; his wife viz. Mrs. E411/2013 Page 3/28 Payal with their two daughters viz. Kumari Vanshika (aged about nine years) and Kumari Manya (aged about five years). The second son of the petitioner viz. Sh. Manish Kumar is also married and is residing in other portion of property no. 2804 with his wife, one daughter Kumari Ridhima and son Master Ayushman. Both the sons of the petitioner alongwith their wives and children are occupying the portions shown in yellow colour in property no. 2804, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi110007 which is the only portion in occupation of the petitioner's family. The petitioner feels scarcity of the accommodation and requires the demised premises. The demised premises suits the petitioner the most as by shifting to the demised premises, the petitioner alongwith her husband will be able to reside in the house exclusively owned by her where she can live with her own sons and daughterinlaw and as such the family can live together happily with utmost love and affection.
5. The petitioner does not have any room for guests and visitors. The petitioner's eldest daughter Smt. Anshu who is married and is residing at her inlaws house in Hari Nagar, Ghanta Ghar, New Delhi and whenever she visits petitioner's house, the petitioner always feel difficulty to provide E411/2013 Page 4/28 accommodation to her, her husband and her two young age children. The petitioner has no accommodation to accommodate or entertain any guests whosoever visits the petitioner's house. The petitioner, as such, requires two rooms for her elder son Sh. Shailender's family while two other rooms are required for the family of her younger son Sh. Manish Kumar. The petitioner requires atleast two rooms for herself and for her husband. One room is required for visiting daughter or guests who visits the petitioner's family on various occasions. The petitioner, as such besides requiring the demised premises, also requires other accommodation to meet the requirement of her family and the petitioner is intending and in fact is filing eviction petition against the other tenants viz. Smt. Uma Gupta, widow of Late Sh. Mohan Lal Gupta who is occupying two rooms accommodation on the first floor.
6. The petitioner honestly, genuinely and in fact requires the demised premises bonafide for her residence as well as for the residence of her family members dependent upon her. If the eviction of respondent is ordered, then the petitioner and her sons can live in the same house and E411/2013 Page 5/28 enjoy in joint family atmosphere. The portion currently occupied by the petitioner in H.No. 2799, Gali Rajputana, is insufficient and is not suitable to the petitioner on account of large family. Besides the demised premises the petitioner does not have any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in Delhi. It is prayed that an eviction order may be passed in respect of the tenanted premises as shown in red colour in the site plan.
7. The respondent has filed an application for leave to defend U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25B of DRC Act to defend and contest the eviction petition. The respondent has contended that site plan filed by the petitioner does not give the correct position of the premises as per the colours as mentioned in the petition.
8. It is mandatory for having relief U/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act to satisfy and justify that the landlord as no other reasonable, suitable accommodation to accommodate her requirement as demanded and claimed that there is paucity of space. The petitioner has to plead and give full description of the properties including the correct site plan of the property in E411/2013 Page 6/28 question and also about the other property in her possession and available with her or was available with her. But in the present matter, all these facts are absent/deliberately concealed and the petitioner has nowhere given the said details. The site plan filed by the petitioner is also not complete and not giving the full description of the property in question. In the absence of the same, the petitioner has failed to comply with the mandate and basic ingredients of DRC Act for providing the full details of the premises to satisfy and justify the fact that there is no other reasonable and suitable accommodation available with the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner apart from the suit property is in possession of two floors, ground and third floor of another property bearing no. 2799, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi110007 in which the petitioner and her husband resides on the ground floor and her widowed daughter with her children resides on the third floor and on first and second floor, Sh. Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Mahavir Parsad, brother of Sh. Prem Kumar, husband of the petitioner resides. The petitioner has also not given correct description of the property bearing no. 2804, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi110007 in which, on the ground floor, the son of the petitioner, Mr. Shailender resides and is in possession of E411/2013 Page 7/28 two rooms set and on the first floor, another son of the petitioner, Mr. Manish resides and he is in possession of four room set and the same are more specifically shown in the correct site plan filed by the respondents. The petitioner has intentionally and deliberately with malafide intention has not mentioned the complete description of the accommodation/properties available with her to satisfy her need.
9. The petitioner has also concealed the fact that her widowed daughter has got her share (falling to the share of her husband) in the property owned by her inlaws bearing no.277, Jat Chowk, Nangloi, Delhi110041 and the premises falling to her share are lying vacant and are under the lock and key of her widowed daughter Meenakshi. The petitioner has further concealed that she was the owner of the property bearing Khasra No. 9/22, HBLock, Gali No.10, Shiv Mandir, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi measuring 173 sq. yds. and the said property was sold by the petitioner few years back and had there been any bonafide requirement of the space/accommodation for her family, she would not have disposed of the said property. It is specifically denied that the petitioner is the owner of the E411/2013 Page 8/28 suit premises. It is submitted that the petitioner claims to have purchased the property in question from the trust out of the trust property. The trustees cannot dispose of the trust properties without court permission and as such the sale deed, allegedly executed in favour of the petitioner, is null and void and have no legal force and the petitioner is taking appropriate steps for declaring the sale deed as null and void allegedly executed by the President of the Trust in her favour.
10. It is also denied that the petitioner is in paucity of space as she has to adjust her widowed daughter, her family, her sons and their families and also require one room for the guest as claimed. It is submitted that the petitioner has more than sufficient accommodation available for her use and does not require the portion in possession of the respondent and she is seeking the eviction just to satisfy her greed of money as she is planning to give the premises in question to some builder on collaboration and to earn money. It is settled principle of law that the bonafide requirement must be sincere and honest, the question is whether in the give facts and material place on record, the need to occupy the premises are natural, real, sincere E411/2013 Page 9/28 and honest. The bonafide requirement must be manifested in actual needs so as to convince the court that it is not a mere whimsical desire. The facts mentioned by the respondent clearly shows that the grounds stated by the petitioner are whimsical and are not genuine.
11. The malafide intention and dishonest designs committed on the part of the petitioner can very well be inferred by this court as the petitioner has concocted false and frivolous stories. The story thus now being put forth by the petitioner before this court, is altogether false and frivolous and is nothing but all bundle of lies and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. Even otherwise the petition is not maintainable as the same does not fulfill the requisite ingredients of the sections mentioned in the petition by the petitioner and since the mandatory requirement of law have been violated and as such, the petition filed by the petitioner deserved to be rejected outrightly.
12. The petitioner filed her reply alongwith counter affidavit to the application for leave to defend, filed by the respondent and has denied the E411/2013 Page 10/28 allegations leveled by the respondent. She has denied the averments made by the respondent in his application for leave to defend and reaffirmed her stance, as averred in the petition. On the terrace floor of property bearing no. 2799, there is one room, but it is not habitable or suitable to the petitioner and her husband as it is situated on the third floor. The petitioner and her husband are aged and it will be difficult for them to climb upto third floor. Moreover, it is not desirable for the young children of daughter, Ms. Meenakshi to climb on the third floor. In any case, the said room does not meet the entire requirement of the petitioner. The petitioner's daughter, Ms. Meenakshi and her husband were earlier allotted a room which was got vacated after the death of Meenakshi's husband. The said room is now under the occupation of Ms. Tina, sisterinlaw of Ms. Meenakshi. Moreover, property bearing no.277, Jat Chowk, Nangloi is a tenanted property which is on rent with fatherinlaw of Ms. Meenakshi. A plot falling in Khasra No. 9/20, Swaroop Nagar was purchased by the husband of the petitioner which was disposed of on 16.03.2006. The respondent had paid rent to the petitioner in the court of Sh. Vidya Prakash, the then Judge Small Causes Court in suit no. 36/2008. Therefore, the respondent cannot dispute the title E411/2013 Page 11/28 of the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon judgments delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of J. Chattergee Vs. Mohinder Kaur, 2000 RLR 561 (SC); Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119; Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, AIR 1999 SC 2507 and judgment delivered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Sudershan Dutta Vs. Krishan Narain, 1997 RLR 534; Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors., 155 (2008) DLT 383; Mahendra Trivedi Vs. Jai Prakash Verma, 157 (2009) DLT 690; Ramseh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450 and V.S. Sachdeva Vs. M.L. Grover, 1997 RLR 439.
13. Respondent filed rejoinder and allegations leveled by the petitioner were controverted and rebutted. The averments made in application for leave to defend have been reiterated and reaffirmed. Reliance is placed upon judgments delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh, (2001) 1 SCC 706; Charan Dass Duggal Vs. Brahma Nand, (1983) 1 SCC 301; Prativa Rani (Smt) Vs. T.V. E411/2013 Page 12/28 Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353; Santosh Devi Soni Vs. Chand Kiran in Civil Appeal No. 412 of 2000 (decided on 17.01.2000); Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 100; Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222 and judgment delivered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Santosh Vaid & Anr., petitioners Vs. Uttam Chand, respondent and Amrit Lal Ghai, appellant Vs. Darshan Singh, respondent, 188 (2012) DLT 293 (DB).
14. The court has heard submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties and have perused the material on record.
15. While deciding the question as to whether leave to defend should be granted or refused, the Court is required to examine the case on the following aspects :
(a) That the petitioner is owner of the suit premises;
(b) Purpose of letting;
(c) That the premises is required bonafide by the petitioner; and
(d) That the petitioner has no other alternative suitable E411/2013 Page 13/28 accommodation in Delhi.
16. In Precision Metal & Engg. Works Vs. Prema Deva, Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518, it has been held that "while deciding the application for leave to contest, the controller has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant under Sub Section (4) and the reply if any. On perusing the affidavit filed by the tenant and the reply if any filed by the landlord, the controller has to pose to himself the only question, "Does the affidavit disclose, not prove, facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession on the ground specified in clause of the proviso to Section 14 (1)?". The controller is not to record a finding on disputed questions of facts or his preference of one set of affidavits against the other set of affidavits."
The gist of the various decisions is that if any triable issue is raised in the application which can not be decided unless the parties lead evidence, leave to contest should be granted. In all other cases, the leave has to be refused.
17. In Rita Lal Vs. Raj Kumar Singh (2002) 7 SCC 614, Hon'ble E411/2013 Page 14/28 Supreme Court has observed as under : "If the Court is satisfied that though in the pleadings an issue is raised but that is not a triable issue then the Court is justified in refusing the leave to defend. A defence, which is practically moonshine, sham or illusory can not be held to be raising a triable issue. Else the whole purpose behind enacting a provision for granting leave to defend, and not permitting a contest unless leave was granted, would stand defeated." Ownership
18. The respondent has denied that petitioner is owner of the premises in question. It is contended that the petitioner has claimed that she has purchased the property in question from Trustees of the Trust. The Trustees cannot dispose of property of the Trust without permission of the court and therefore, the alleged sale deed dated 24.03.2004 is illegal, null and void.
Per contra, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent has got no locus standi to agitate the legality of sale deed dated 24.07.2004 executed by the President of M/s Ramroop Jagannath E411/2013 Page 15/28 Charitable Trust, Delhi in her favour. In any case, the respondent had admitted that the petitioner is his landlord by paying rent in Civil Suit No. 36/2008 titled as "Savita Devi Vs. Sachin Gupta" in the court of Sh. Vidya Prakash, Ld. Judge Small Causes Court (Central), Delhi and therefore, he is estopped from reagitating the landlordship of the petitioner again.
The court is of the considered view that there is merit in the contention of Ld. Counsel for petitioner. The respondent has got no locus standi to agitate the legality of sale deed dated 24.07.2004 executed by the President of M/s Ramroop Jagannath Charitable Trust, Delhi in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, he is taking appropriate steps seeking declaration of the sale deed as null and void. Moreover, the respondent had admitted in Civil Suit No. 36/2008 titled as "Savita Devi Vs. Sachin Gupta" pending in the court of Sh. Vidya Prakash, Ld. Judge Small Causes Court (Central), Delhi that the petitioner is his landlord by paying rent to her. Therefore, the respondent is precluded from reagitating the landlordship of the petitioner again. The court holds that the petitioner is owner of the tenanted premises and she is landlord in respect of the tenanted premises, qua the respondent. E411/2013 Page 16/28 Purpose of Letting
19. Purpose of letting has become redundant as in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India 148 (2008) DLT 705 Supreme Court, it has been held that the premises let out either for residential or for commercial purposes can be got vacated by the landlord for bonafide requirements. Moreover, admittedly, the tenanted premises is a residential one. Availability or NonAvailability of alternative suitable accommodation in Delhi
20. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that she has no other suitable accommodation with her in Delhi or NCR. She alongwith her husband and widowed daughter, Ms. Meenakshi are residing on ground floor of property bearing no.2799, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. This property is jointly owned by her husband and Sh. Naresh Kumar, elder brother of her husband. Two sons of the petitioner viz. Sh. Shailender Singh and Sh. Manish Kumar are residing alongwith their wives and two children each in portions shown in yellow colour in the site plan of property bearing no. 2804, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. The petitioner is facing acute paucity of E411/2013 Page 17/28 accommodation for her own residence as well as for the residence of her family members dependent upon her.
21. Per contra, it is stated on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has concealed the factum of availability of alternative suitable accommodation available to her and her family members. She and her husband are in possession of ground floor of property bearing no.2799, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi while her widowed daughter and her children reside on third floor of this property. Sh. Shailender, elder son of the petitioner is in possession of two rooms set on the ground floor of property bearing no. 2804, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi and Sh. Manish, younger son of the petitioner is in possession of four rooms set on first floor of the said property. Her widowed daughter had got share in property, owned by her inlaws, bearing no. 277, Jat Colony, Nangloi, Delhi and the same is lying vacant. The petitioner was owner of property bearing Khasra No. 9/22, HBlock, Street No. 10, Shiv Mandir, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi which was sold by her few years ago.
E411/2013 Page 18/28
22. It is denied by the petitioner that the petitioner has concealed anything about the factum of availability of alternative suitable accommodation available to her and her family members. She has categorically mentioned in the petition that she, her husband and widowed daughter are in possession of ground floor of property bearing no.2799, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. On terrace floor, one room is in existence. However, that room is not in a habitable condition. That room is not suitable for the petitioner and her husband considering their age and physical condition. It is not desirable for young children of widowed daughter, Ms. Meenakshi to climb upto third floor as it would be detrimental for them owing to its height. In any case, one room is grossly inadequate to meet the entire requirement of the petitioner and her family members dependent upon her. It has been categorically averred in the petition itself that Sh. Shailender, elder son of the petitioner is in possession of two rooms set on the ground floor of property bearing no. 2804, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi and Sh. Manish, younger son of the petitioner is in possession of two rooms set in the portion highlighted in yellow colour in the site plan appended alongwith the petition. It is emphatically denied that Sh. Manish, E411/2013 Page 19/28 younger son of the petitioner is in possession of four rooms. There is no difference in the portions shown in yellow colour of property bearing no. 2804, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi, in the site plan filed by the petitioner and green colour in the site plan filed by the respondent. It is also emphatically denied that the widowed daughter of the petitioner had got any share in property bearing no. 277, Jat Colony, Nangloi, Delhi. As a matter of fact, the room earlier allotted to Ms. Meenakshi and her husband was got vacated after the death of her husband. The said room is currently in possession of Ms. Tina, wife of brotherinlaw of Ms. Meenakshi. Moreover, the property bearing no. 277, Jat Colony, Nangloi, Delhi is not owned by fatherinlaw of Ms. Meenakshi. It is under tenancy of the father inlaw of Ms. Meenakshi. It is denied that the petitioner was owner of property bearing Khasra No. 9/22, HBlock, Street No. 10, Shiv Mandir, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. A plot measuring 173 sq. yds. situated in Khasra No. 9/20, which was owned by husband of the petitioner, was sold in March, 2006 and it has got no bearing on the availability of suitable alternative accommodation with the petitioner.
E411/2013 Page 20/28
23. The court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner has herself specifically mentioned in the petition that she, her husband and widowed daughter are in possession of ground floor of property bearing no.2799, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. The room situated on the terrace floor will not be suitable for the petitioner and her husband considering their age. Moreover, one room will not be sufficient to meet the entire requirement of the petitioner and her family members dependent upon her. It has also been specifically mentioned in the petition that Sh. Shailender, elder son of the petitioner is in possession of two rooms set on the ground floor of property bearing no. 2804, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi and Sh. Manish, younger son of the petitioner is in possession of two rooms set in the portion highlighted in yellow colour in the site plan appended alongwith the petition. A perusal of the site plans filed by the petitioner and respondent shows that there is no difference in the portions situated on first floor of property bearing no. 2804, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi, shown in yellow colour by the petitioner and green colour by the respondent. No document has been filed by the respondent to prima facie establish that the property E411/2013 Page 21/28 bearing no. 277, Jat Colony, Nangloi, Delhi is owned by fatherinlaw of Ms. Meenakshi and she was given a share in the said property. In the absence of any document to support the allegations that the younger son of the petitioner is in possession of four rooms on the first floor and widowed daughter, Ms. Meenakshi was given a share in the property owned by her fatherinlaw, the court holds that the respondent has miserably failed to raise any triable issue on these aspects. Admittedly, plot measuring 173 sq. yds. situated in Khasra No. 9/20, which was owned by husband of the petitioner, was sold in March, 2006 and therefore, it has got no relevance/bearing on the availability of suitable alternative accommodation with the petitioner. Thus, court holds that the petitioner has been successful in prima facie establishing that she is not having any other reasonably suitable accommodation for her residential use and the respondent has not been able to raise any triable issue. Bonafide requirement
24. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that she alongwith her husband and widowed daughter, Ms. Meenakshi are residing on ground floor of property bearing no.2799, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. This E411/2013 Page 22/28 property is jointly owned by her husband and Sh. Naresh Kumar, elder brother of her husband. The petitioner's family is having tense relations with the family of Sh. Naresh Kumar, elder brother of the petitioner's husband. Both the families are not even on talking terms with each other. Two sons of the petitioner viz. Sh. Shailender Singh and Sh. Manish Kumar are residing alongwith their wives and two children each in portions shown in yellow colour in the site plan of property bearing no. 2804, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. The petitioner is facing acute paucity of accommodation for her own residence as well as for the residence of her family members dependent upon her. She requires two rooms for her elder son Sh. Shailender's family while two other rooms are required for the family of her younger son Sh. Manish Kumar. The petitioner requires two rooms for herself and for her husband. One room is required for visiting eldest daughter, Ms. Anshu or guests who visits the petitioner's family on various occasions. She also requires one room for her widowed daughter, Ms. Meenakshi and her two children. Therefore, the petitioner is in bonafide need of the tenanted premises i.e. the portion of occupied by the respondent, as shown in red colour in the site plan filed alongwith the petition, situated on first floor of property bearing no.2804, E411/2013 Page 23/28 Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi110007.
25. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the purported requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide. She and her husband are in possession of ground floor of property bearing no.2799, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi while her widowed daughter and her children reside on third floor of this property. Sh. Shailender, elder son of the petitioner is in possession of two rooms set on the ground floor of property bearing no. 2804, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi and Sh. Manish, younger son of the petitioner is in possession of four rooms set on first floor of the said property. Her widowed daughter had got share in property, owned by her inlaws, bearing no. 277, Jat Colony, Nangloi, Delhi and the same is lying vacant.
26. It is denied by the petitioner that her requirement is not bonafide. She has categorically mentioned in the petition that she, her husband and widowed daughter are in possession of ground floor of property bearing no. 2799, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. On terrace floor, one room is in E411/2013 Page 24/28 existence. However, that room is not in a habitable condition. Moreover, that room is not suitable for the petitioner and her husband considering their age and physical condition. It is not desirable for young children of widowed daughter, Ms. Meenakshi to climb upto third floor as it would be detrimental for them owing to its height. Moreover, one room is grossly inadequate to meet her and her family's requirement. It has been categorically averred in the petition itself that Sh. Shailender, elder son of the petitioner is in possession of two rooms set on the ground floor of property bearing no. 2804, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi and Sh. Manish, younger son of the petitioner is in possession of two rooms set in the portion highlighted in yellow colour in the site plan appended alongwith the petition. It is emphatically denied that Sh. Manish, younger son of the petitioner is in possession of four rooms. There is no difference in the portion shown in yellow colour in the site plan filed by the petitioner and the portion green colour in the site plan filed by the respondent. It is also emphatically denied that the widowed daughter of the petitioner had got any share in property bearing no. 277, Jat Colony, Nangloi, Delhi. As a matter of fact, the room earlier allotted to Ms. Meenakshi and her husband was got E411/2013 Page 25/28 vacated after the death of her husband. The said room is currently in possession of Ms. Tina, wife of brotherinlaw of Ms. Meenakshi. Moreover, the property bearing no. 277, Jat Colony, Nangloi, Delhi is not owned by fatherinlaw of Ms. Meenakshi. It is under tenancy of the father inlaw of Ms. Meenakshi.
27. The court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent. The contentions of the respondent pertaining to availability of alternative suitable accommodation have already been dealt with and adjudicated in the foregoing para no.23 of this order. The petitioner's requirement for two rooms for her elder son Sh. Shailender's family; two other rooms for the family of her younger son Sh. Manish Kumar; atleast one room for herself and for her husband; one room for her visiting eldest daughter, Ms. Anshu or guests who visits the petitioner's family on various occasions and one room for her widowed daughter, Ms. Meenakshi and her two children is justified. It is natural for aged parents to expect that they live with their sons and their families during advanced ages of their life. The petitioner's desire to shift to her exclusively E411/2013 Page 26/28 owned property bearing no. 2804, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi is natural and logical as there is no scope for her two sons and their families to shift in property bearing no. 2799, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi due to want of availability of sufficient accommodation there. Therefore, the court holds that the respondent has failed to raise any triable issue regarding the bonafide requirement of the petitioner and her family members dependent upon her, whereas the petitioner has been able to establish that the tenanted premises is bonafidely required by her for her own use and for use by her family members dependent upon her.
28. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that the respondent has failed to set up any triable issue which requires inquiry or trial. In other words, primafacie there is nothing on record which would disentitle the petitioner of the right of immediate possession in respect of the tenanted premises.
29. Accordingly, the application under Section 25B (4) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, filed by the respondent is dismissed. The petition is E411/2013 Page 27/28 allowed and eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of one big hall/room with kitchen therein and adjoining room admeasuring 10' X 9' just continuous to the said portion and bathroom, situated on the ground floor in property no.2804, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi110007, as shown in red colour in siteplan attached alongwith the petition. This order shall not be executable before expiry of six months from the date of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (SANDEEP GARG)
on 18.10.2014 Administrative Civil Judge cum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi
E411/2013 Page 28/28
E411/2013
18.10.2014
Pr: None.
Vide separate order of even date, application for leave to defend, filed by the respondent is dismissed. The petition is allowed and eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of one big hall/room with kitchen therein and adjoining room ad measuring 10' X 9' just continuous to the said portion and bathroom, situated on the ground floor in property no.2804, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi110007, as shown in red colour in siteplan attached alongwith the petition. This order shall not be executable before expiry of six months from the date of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Sandeep Garg) ACJcumARC (Central) Delhi/18.10.2014 E411/2013 Page 29/28