Delhi District Court
Dr. Madhu Jaiswal vs M/S Delhi Provincial Motor Transport on 28 January, 2021
//1//
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR, ARC-1, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Eviction Petition No. E-08/14 (New No. 78435/16)
Unique Case ID/CNR no. DLCT03-000950-2014
Dr. Madhu Jaiswal,
W/o Dr. O.P. Jaiswal
R/o D-7, H. No. 7096,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 ...Petitioner
VERSUS
M/s Delhi Provincial Motor Transport
Union Congress
Through its President/General Secretary,
Flat No. 6 (over shops nos. 11-12),
Gokhale Market, Mori Gate,
Delhi-110006 ...Respondent
Date of Institution of Petition : 13.01.2014
Date on judgment reserved : 21.01.2021
Date of Judgment pronounced : 28.01.2021
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act filed by the petitioner against the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement for her own use and for the use of her husband to run a speciality clinic for kidney diseases of children. Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 1 of 22
//2// Petitioner's case
2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the premises bearing Flat No. 6, over shops nos. 11-12, Gokhale Market, Mori Gate, Delhi-110006, more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan filed with the eviction petition (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises'). It is stated that monthly rate of rent is Rs.799/- excluding electricity and water charges.
3. It is pleaded by the petitioner that she needs tenanted premises for her own use and for the use of her husband to run a speciality clinic for kidney diseases of children (Pediatric Nephrology). It is stated that the petitioner is a doctor who has been practicing Medicine for the last 30 years and running a small clinic at B-235/236, Nehru Vihar, near Timarpur, Delhi and her husband Dr. O.P. Jaiswal did his MBBS and M.D. from AMU who is a duly qualified pediatric Nephrologist (Specialist in kidney Diseases of Children) having Diploma in Nephrology and Hypertension and working as a consultant with Sunder Lal Jain Charitable Hospital, Ashok Vihar, Phase-3, Delhi. The husband of the petitioner is keen to start his own Centre for Kidney diseases of children in which the petitioner would also be able to assist her husband as Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 2 of 22 //3// she is also a qualified doctor. The husband of petitioner is stated to be dependent on the petitioner for the purpose of accommodation and they have no other suitable place in which they can start the said centre.
4. It is averred that the requirement of tenanted premises is bonafide by the petitioner for starting own Centre for kidney diseases of children by her husband and that they do not have any other suitable property for the stated requirement.
5. It is on the basis of these facts that a prayer has been made by the petitioner to pass an eviction order in respect of the tenanted premises in her favour and against the respondent.
Respondent's case
6. Summons were served upon the respondent. The application for leave to defend filed by the respondent and leave to defend was allowed vide order dated 31.05.2017. Accordingly, written statement was filed by the respondent on 09.01.2018.
7. In the written statement, it is stated that requirement shown in the petition is not bonafide need of petitioner but a desire to evict the respondent- tenant malafidely for ulterior purpose. The petitioner and her family members Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 3 of 22 //4// had transferred one premises adjacent to suit property bearing Flat no. 5, over shop no. 9 & 10, Gokhale market situated in same building in the year 2014. It is stated that the transferred property had also devolved upon the legal heir of original landlord Late R.P. Chaddha through succession similarly as this suit property. It is stated that transferred property was also given on rent before its sale to the purchaser and this act of selling out of flat no. 5, Gokhle Market which is similarly situated flat having same area in the same locality and adjacent to tenanted premise by legal heir of original landlord Late R.P. Chadha including the petitioner show their malafide intention, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to eviction of tenanted premises as sought by her showing the alleged bonafide need in the petition. The respondent has taken objections stating that petitioner is not entitled to maintain the present eviction petition for the alleged need of her husband, who is not dependent on her having independent source of income. It is further stated that the petitioner is successfully running a clinic along with her husband from a building consisted of three floors situated at Nehru Vihar, near Timar Pur, Delhi which are in the occupation of petitioner for long time and the said clinic is suitable and have sufficient accommodation available to the petitioner. The respondent has further stated that the suit premises is not suitable for opening the alleged Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 4 of 22 //5// "Centre for kidney diseases of children" on account of pollution, noise in the surrounding area and also there is no a clear approaching road due to congestion caused by transport vehicles. It is further stated that the site plan filed with petition describes wrong specification of tenanted premise's area and staircase to show its suitability for the purpose of hospital/medical centre whereas the suit premises is not suitable for opening the alleged medical centre on account of its narrow width stair-case for entering in the premises. It is alleged that the petitioner did not disclose the material facts regarding the other property owned or occupied by her husband in eviction petition. It is further alleged that the deed of family arrangement is, in fact, a partition deed and same cannot be looked into being unregistered. It is further stated that the said deed got executed in 1993, but original owner had died in the year 2004 and the petitioner is not the party in this family arrangement. It is further stated that the interest of original owner late R.P. Chadha over the suit premises after his death had devolve upon all the four legal heir as per Hindu Succession Act and this suit premises was not inherited by petitioner alone. Therefore, other joint owner of this premises should have impleaded and available accommodations in their possession be considered before proceeding in eviction petition filed against the respondent-tenant. It is further Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 5 of 22 //6// stated that by paying rent to one of the joint legal heir cannot estopped the respondent to raise the available accommodation of all legal heir of original landlord.
Petitioner's case as per Replication
8. Petitioner filed the replication wherein the averments of the eviction petition were reiterated and reaffirmed and those of the written statement were denied as false and incorrect. In particular, it is averred that the respondent has referred to another property flat no. A-52, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi which was also owned by Late Sh. R.P. Chadha and the said flat has already been transferred during the life time of Late Sh. R.P. Chadha and the ownership of the said flat is not relevant for the purpose of determining the merits of the present case. It is further averred that the need of the petitioner and her husband to start their own Centre for kidney diseases of children cannot be termed as fanciful, unrealistic and far-fetched. She further averred that the respondent has assumed the role of health commissioner in determining the hazards which are likely to be faced by the petitioner for which neither the respondents are qualified nor it lies in their domain. Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 6 of 22
//7// Evidence led by the parties
9. In order to prove the case, petitioner examined herself as PW-1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A. Following documents were relied upon and proved by PW-1:
(i) Ex.PW-1/1 is the original lease deed
(ii) Ex.PW-1/2 is the site plan
(iii) Ex.PW-1/3 is the copy of house tax receipt
(iv) Ex.PW-1/4 is the death certificate of the father of the petitioner
(v) Ex.PW-1/5 is the house tax receipt (OSR)
(vi) Ex.PW-1/6 is the copy of Memorandum of Partition and Family
Arrangement (OSR)
(vii) Ex.PW-1/8 is the degree of MBBS of the petitioner (OSR)
(viii) Ex.PW-1/9 is the degree of MBBS of the husband of the petitioner (OSR)
(ix) Ex.PW-1/10 is the MD degree of the husband of the petitioner (OSR)
(x) Ex.PW-1/11 is the diploma in nephrology and hypertension of the husband of the petitioner (OSR)
(xi) Ex.PW-1/12 is copy of certificate issued by Sunder Lal Jain Charitable Hospital issued to husband of petitioner
(xii) Ex.PW-1/13 to Ex.PW-1/17 are the original rent receipts issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent.
(xiii) Ex.PW-1/18 is the copy of notice
(xiv) Ex.PW-1/19 to Ex.PW-1/21 are the original speed post receipt Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 7 of 22 //8// and track report respectively.
The document mentioned in affidavit as Ex.PW-1/7 is marked being the photocopy of the same.
10. The respondent has not led any evidence to rebut the documentary and oral testimony of the petitioner. Her testimony remains uncontroverted and unchallenged.
11. I have heard arguments and carefully gone through the record. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner must establish that:-
i. He/she is owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.
ii. He/she requires the premises bonafide for himself/herself or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her..
iii. He/sher has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
Ownership of tenanted premises and relationship of landlord- tenant between petitioner and respondent:
12. The respondent in his written statement stated that the petitioner is not an absolute owner to institute the eviction petition. The respondent stated that the premises was owned by the father of the petitioner and after his death Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 8 of 22 //9// in year 2004, his other legal heirs have also interest over this property as well as over other property. It is further mentioned that documents of family arrangement cannot be looked into as the said deed effected partition between family in substance and therefore, partition deed should be registered. It is also mentioned that alleged deed executed in 1993, but original owner of suit premises had died in the year 2004. It is further stated that petitioner is not the party of family arrangement and therefore, the ownership of the property has not been devolved upon her by virtue of any arrangement as mentioned in the deed. It is further mentioned that in the interest of original owner late Sh. R.P. Chadha over the suit premises after his death devolved upon all the four legal heir as per Hindu Succession Act. The premises was not inherited by petitioner alone. Therefore, other joint owner of the premises should have impleaded.
13. The petitioner in his evidence specifically deposed that tenanted premises bearing flat no.6 over shops no.11-12, Gokhle Market, Mori Gate, Delhi-110006 were owned by her late father through lease deed dated 22.12.1961 by the Ministry of Rehabilitation. Thus, said lease deed is duly proved as Ex.PW1/A. The family arrangement-cum-memo of partition dated 23.07.1993 was executed by late Sh. Ram Prakash Chadha (father of the Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 9 of 22 //10// petitioner), Late Smt. Shakuntala Chadha (mother of the petitioner) and Dr. B.K. Chadha and Sh. Arvind Chadha (co-partners of the HUF). The deed of family settlement is duly proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/6. So, the petitioner claiming herself to be the owner of the premises in view of family settlement dated 23.07.1993. During her cross-examination by the respondent, petitioner admitted that her father did not execute any will in her favour, but the family settlement Ex.PW1/6 was executed. She also admitted that her mother also not executed any will. She also admitted that deed of settlement does not bear her signatures and the same was not executed in her presence. She also stated in her cross-examination that after the death of her parents, the relinquishment deed was executed by her brother and her sister in her favour. The said relinquishment deed is marked as mark-A.
14. In the case of "Gopal Kishan Vs. Ram Saroop" 243 (2017) DLT 66", the following was held :-
"Court held that a tenant has no locus standi to challenge the family settlement so arrived at between the members of the family of the landlord even if it is not registered. All that the respondent lastly is to show he is being a better status than the tenant, may be, he is not an absolute owner of the premise"Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 10 of 22
//11//
15. The respondent failed to prove that petitioner is not the owner of the premises as respondent has not led any evidence to disprove the contention of the petitioner. The respondent has admitted the correctness of the para-9 to 17 of the eviction petition in her written statement which shows that they have admitted the monthly rent of premise and the ownership of the father of the petitioner. They have also admitted that they have been put into tenanted premises by late father of the petitioner nearly about 50 years ago. Thus, it is apparent from the pleading on record that the respondent has not denied being the tenant in the premises and they had not put into the tenanted premises by the late father of the petitioner. The document i.e. Ex.PW1/6 i.e. memorandum of partition shows petitioner became the owner of the property. Later on, a relinquishment deed which is marked as mark-'A' also got executed by the brothers and sisters of the petitioner. Moreover, respondent admitted to have paid rent to the petitioner. The rent receipts duly proved as Ex.PW1/13 to Ex.PW1/17. Thus, petitioner is able to show that she is the landlady of the property.
16. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "A.K. Nayar Vs. Mahesh Prasad" 153 (2008) Delhi Law Times 423 and "Vinod Kumar Verma Vs. Manmohan Verma & Anr." Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 11 of 22
//12// 148(2008 Delhi Law Times 580. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "A.K. Nayar Vs. Mahesh Prasad" held that "it is settled law that under Delhi Rent Control Act, a landlord seeking eviction of premises for his bonafide requirement is not required to show his absolute ownership over the property." In "Vinod Kumar Verma Vs. Manmohan Verma & Anr.", the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors." AIR 1987 SC 2028 held that "meaning of word 'owner' is vis-a-vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant. It is also held in the same judgment that "idea of ownership in such cases is one of the better rights to be in possession and to obtain it."
17. In the case of "Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs. Uganti Devi", 2008(2) RCR(Rent) 567 : 2009 (157) DLT 450 , the following was held :-
"The Court went further to say imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of eviction petition under Section 14(1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act and neither a tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or a title not vesting in the landlord"
18. The law as discussed above is settled that in petition under Section 14(1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner is not required to prove the absolute ownership. It is sufficient, if the petitioner shows himself/herself to Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 12 of 22 //13// be something more than tenant.
19. Thus, I am satisfied that the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises and relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and respondent have been duly proved by the petitioner and thus, it is held that petitioner is competent to have filed the present eviction petition and there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent.
Requirement of premises bonafide by the petitioner for start own Centre for kidney diseases of children by her husband and non-availability of any other reasonably suitable accommodation:
20. The respondent in her written statement stated that petitioner does not require the tenanted premises for bonafide need of her husband. The respondent alleged that petitioner and her family members had transferred one premises adjacent to suit property bearing flat no.5, over shop no.9 & 10, Gokhale Market situated in same building in the year 2014. The respondent alleged that act of selling of flat bearing no.5, Gokhle Market which is similarly situated flat having same area in same locality and adjacent to tenanted premise by legal heir of original landlord Late R.P. Chaddha clearly shows the malafide intention of present petitioner. It is further alleged that petitioner has Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 13 of 22 //14// other property/interest in other property i.e. flat no.A-52, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. He further alleged that petitioners are professionally well off. It is also mentioned in the written statement that the petitioner is running a clinic along- with her husband consisting of three floors, situated at Nehru Village, near Timarpur, Delhi and said clinic is suitable and sufficient accommodation available with the petitioner and her husband. It is further alleged that the petitioner is seeking eviction of the tenanted premises for opening of "Centre for Kidney diseases of children" for her husband. However, the tenanted premises is situated in the area of Gokhale Market and the suit premises is surrounded by machine or locomotive workshop related to transport vehicles such as goods truck, buses etc. and surrounded by mechanic and motor parts shops. Moreover, the suit premises is situated where there is high level of air pollution due to pump collaboration of diesel engine and fuel pump of trucks. It is also mentioned that the suit premises is situated on the shop no.11 & 12. From the shop no.11 & 12, 'Dashmesh Diesel Service' is running where the work of diesel engine & calibration of trucks is being carried on and on the left side, there is shop of welding work. Thus, the respondent pleads that suit premises is wholly unsuitable due to air and noise pollution and the congestion in the surrounding area for the purpose of running 'Centre for Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 14 of 22 //15// Kidney diseases of children'. It is further stated that staircase to the tenanted premise is very narrow having 3 feet 4 inch wide only. Thus, it is unsuitable for running a clinic/medical centre.
21. The respondent has not led his evidence and failed to prove the contentions as raised in his pleadings. However, petitioner in her evidence showed that the premise is required bonafide by her own use and for use of her husband. She clearly proved that she and her husband are qualified doctors and her husband is duly qualified pediatric nephrologist (specialist in kidney diseases of children). She has proved the relevant documents in this regard which are exhibited as Ex.PW1/9, Ex.PW1/10 and Ex.PW1/11. Thus, she has proved that her husband is duly qualified to start a clinic for Kidney diseases of children. She specifically showed that her husband intends to establish and run a medical centre for kidney diseases of children which shall be looked after by the husband of the petitioner and she will also assist him.
22. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that husband of the petitioner being a qualified doctor and financial well off, is not dependent on the petitioner for her bonafide requirement. I am Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 15 of 22 //16// not satisfied with the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent as in the case of "Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Deepika Verma" RC Rev. 138/2015 dated 14.10.2015, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held the following:
"12.Customarily or in common parlance a dependent would be defined as any person who is reliant on another either for financial or physical support for sustenance of life. It is pertinent to note that the word dependent or as to what constitutes a family has nowhere been defined in the Delhi Rent Control Act. Rather the legislators consciously and deliberately have used the words "any member of family dependent on the landlord" instead of defining a clear degree of relations so as to construe a wider meaning to the aforesaid words as man is a social creature and part of a complex societal system involving myriad of relations from which he cannot be isolated. It is significant to understand that the dependency is not restricted to financial or physical but will also include emotional reliance on another person."
23. In the case of "Manju Devi Pratap Singh" RC Rev. No. 375/2014 dated 23.02.2015, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held the following:
"10. The Supreme Court in Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal (2002) 5 SCC 397 while dealing with a similar provision under Section 13(3) (a) (ii) (a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, interpreted the expression, "for his own use" and held-
"24. We are of the opinion that the expression "for his own use" as occurring in Section 13(3)(a) (ii) of the Act cannot be narrowly construed. The expression must be assigned a Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 16 of 22 //17// wider, liberal and practical meaning. The requirement is not the requirement of the landlord alone in the sense that the landlord must for himself require the accommodation and to fulfill the requirement he must himself physically occupy the premises. The requirement of a member of the family or for a person on whom the landlord is dependent or who is dependent on the landlord can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord for his own use. In the several decided cases referred to hereinabove, we have found the parimateria provisions being interpreted so as to include the requirement of the wife, husband, sister, children including son, daughter, a widowed daughter and her son, nephew, coparceners, members of family and dependents and kith and kin in the requirement of landlord as : "his" or "his own requirement and user."
24. Thus, in view of the settled law, I am satisfied that husband of the petitioner is dependent on the petitioner and moreover, petitioner also requires the said shop for her own use.
25. Regarding the adjacent property bearing flat no.5, Gokhle Market, the petitioner admitted that same belongs to her sister. She also stated that said property is no more with her sister. However, she specifically stated that she does not know when the said property was sold by her sister. She also stated that she does not know anything in that respect. The respondent contended that adjoining property i.e. flat no.5 belongs to the sister of the petitioner and her sister sold the property. However, selling of the property not proved by Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 17 of 22 //18// the respondent. This Court is unable to comprehend how the selling of flat no.5 (though not proved) affects the bonafide need of the petitioner in the present case. The respondent cannot impute the malafide to the petitioner in the present case just because her sister sold the adjacent property. Moreover, respondent can have recourse to Section 19(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act in case of any aforesaid eventuality after vacation of the property.
26. The petitioner admitted that the premises shown in Ex.PW1/XK shows his clinic at Nehru Vihar, near Timar Pur, Delhi and it consists of ground floor, first floor and second floor and constructed on a plot of 50 Sq. Yards. She specifically stated that premises at Nehru Vihar is a residential area. She also stated that her husband is not owning any commercial property except the property situated at Nehru Vihar. She denied that property no.A-52, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi lying with the family of her father. She admitted that the said property was disposed off by her parents in their life time. Thus, the petitioner clearly established that her husband has no other commercial property except the property situated at Nehru Vihar.
27. The respondent tried to show through photographs exhibited as Ex.PW1/XA to Ex.PW1/XJ i.e. area where the property falls is surrounded by Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 18 of 22 //19// diesel pumps calibration and there is no approach road to the said premises and the premises is above the 'Dashmesh Diesel Service'. Thus, premises is not suitable for running the proposed clinic. Furthermore, Ld. Counsel for the respondent in his written arguments mentioned that as per Delhi Nursing Home Registration Act, 1953 and the Rules made under this act specifically prescribed for clean surrounding. Apart from these requirement, any tenanted nursing home have to take fire certificate, pollution certificate as well as provide the certificate for facility of Ambulance.
28. The respondent had not entered into witness box and failed to show that premise in question is unsuitable for running a medical clinic. Moreover, nothing has been place on record which suggest that running a clinic from the said shop is not permitted as per any law. Question of taking relevant permission/certificate from the concerned authorities for running the clinic would come when the tenanted premise get vacated. At this stage, it is premature to expect the petitioner to provide proof as to how she will obtain such permissions. Thus, the arguments of the respondent is misconceived.
29. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta" 173(2010) Delhi Law Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 19 of 22 //20// Times 318. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini" (2005) 12 SCC 778 held that "heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove that requirement is not genuine. The mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut strong presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine". It is well settled that it is for the landlord to see as to which premise is more suitable to him/her and in what manner.
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimlabai Prabhulal & Ors." (2005) 8 SCC 252 held that :-
"It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business".
31. In the case of "Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan" 1996) 5 SCC 353", the following was held :-
"The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how & in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of the property."Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 20 of 22
//21//
32. Thus, relying on the above stated judgments, I am satisfied that it is not for the tenant to decide suitability of the clinic of the petitioner. Petitioner clearly establish that her husband has no other commercial property to run a clinic for kidney diseases of children. The other clinic falls in the residential area. The tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord/owner. The petitioners have full right to decide as to from which premise she wants to start their clinic. The petitioners are willing to start their clinic for kidney diseases of children from the premises in question. Though, the said premise is in the auto market and situated above the shop and the area is also congested. Nonetheless, it is the sole prerogative of the landlord to decide from which premise he wants to run the clinic. The tenant and for that matter, Court also cannot dictate or suggest that the premise is not suitable for their proposed clinic. The owner/landlord has absolute liberty to decide the viability of running his clinic from the tenanted premises. The width of staircase is also not relevant to decide suitable accommodation of the petitioner and her husband, due to above reasons only.
33. The net result is that petitioner has been able to establish that the tenanted premises is required bonafide to start Centre for kidney diseases of children by the husband of petitioner and petitioner herself and she has no Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 21 of 22 //22// other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation in her possession. The petitioner is entitled for an eviction order. Accordingly, the eviction petition is allowed and order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent directing the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises bearing Flat No. 6, over shops nos. 11-12, Gokhale Market, Mori Gate, Delhi-110006 more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan filed by the petitioner i.e. Ex. PW1/2, in terms of Section 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The landlord, however, shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this order.
34. No order as to costs. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by Manoj Manoj Kumar Kumar (MANOJ KUMAR) Date:
2021.01.28 17:20:39 ARC-I, Central District, +0530 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Announced in open court on 28.01.2021) Eviction petition bearing E. No.08/14 (New No.-78435/16) Page 22 of 22