Delhi District Court
Hazari Courts vs Sh. Dayal Saran Puri Alias Dayal Puri on 31 October, 2011
//1//
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH, ARC (CENTRAL) TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
E157/09
31.10.2011
Smt. Rama Rani Sharma
W/o Sh. S.C.Sharma,
R/o Property bearing No. XV2397,
Tilak Gali, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi110055. ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Dayal Saran Puri alias Dayal Puri
S/o Sh. Hans Raj Puri
R/o XV2397 (Second Floor),
Tilak Gali, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi. ...Respondent
Petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act
1. Date of institution of the case : 27.09.2004
2. Date of Judgment Reserved : 20.10.2011
3. Date of Judgment pronounced : 31.10.2011
JUDGMENT
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is owner/landlady of the property bearing no. 2397, Tilak Gali, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi110055. The respondent is tenant in one room, front tinshed, open roof with latrine on second floor of the said property @ Rs. 50/ per month as rent E157/09 Page 1 of 23 //2// excluding of all other charges. It is stated that the petitioner has purchased the property vide registered sale deed dated 21.09.1992 by the previous owner Smt. Indu Wahie w/o Sh. Vipin Wahie. The premises in question were let out to the respondent for residential purposes. Even otherwise the rent is being paid by the respondent to the petitioner after September, 1992. The family of the petitioner consists of herself, two sons, two daughters in law, one grand daughter and two grand sons. The present accommodation in possession of the petitioner consists of one drawing, one dining, two bed rooms, kitchen, verandah, open terrace and two W.C and one room on the second floor. Sizes of the rooms are very small. The present accommodation is on the first floor of the property which is insufficient looking into growing needs of the petitioner. One of the sons sleeps in the drawing room on account of shortage of accommodation. It is further stated that the petitioner has no other property in Delhi except the suit premises, therefore, the petitioner required the premises in question bona fide for herself and for the members of the family who are dependent upon her for residence purpose. It is important to mention here that leave to defend was granted to the respondent by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 22.09.2007 and respondent was allowed to file written statement.
E157/09 Page 2 of 23
//3//
2. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it is denied that the premises under the tenancy of the respondent have been let out for residential purposes. It is further denied that the petitioner is owner of the premises in question. The petitioner never claimed herself to be owner of the property and it is always Sh. S.C.Sharma, husband of the petitioner who has been represented to be the owner of the property. The respondent has been the tenant in respect of the suit premises @ Rs. 22/ per month under the petitioner being the landlady and she issued the receipt when the rent was paid to her. It is further stated that in the year 1999 respondent was forced to increase the rent to Rs. 50/. Respondent was being pressed to pay Rs. 500/ per month which was neither legal nor the rent could be increased to such an extent after 1999. Now, the petitioner again started pressing the respondent to increase the rent to Rs. 500/. It is further stated that the petitioner has filed wrong site plan by showing the existence of two rooms, one drawing room, one lobby, one kitchen on the first floor and two rooms on the second floor with the portion covered with ACC sheets. It is denied that the petitioner is in possession of only first floor of the property whereas it is stated that the petitioner is not only in possession of entire first floor but is also in possession of part of the second floor. There are six rooms on the first floor and one room on the second floor in possession of petitioner. The E157/09 Page 3 of 23 //4// portion where the petitioner has shown to be lobby, in fact there exist two rooms and the kitchen has also been wrongly shown which is also a full fledged room as such there are six rooms on the first floor and the kitchen has also room. The petitioner has claimed and shown one room on the second floor but the portions where the petitioner has shown the terrace there is also one more room which has not been shown by the petitioner. It is further denied that the sons, their wives and children are dependent upon her for the purpose of residence. The elder son of petitioner namely Arun Kumar Sharma is residing in Gurgaon alongwith his family members in his own flat no. 704, Paarth Executive Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Sector 55, Gurgaon Haryana and the younger son of the petitioner alongwith his wife has also left the suit property and residing separately, therefore, existing accommodation in possession of the petitioner is much more than her requirement. It is further stated that two rooms were constructed by the petitioner in the year 2002 at second floor measuring 17 X 10 and 10 X 10 by virtue of which the petitioner deprived the respondent with the fresh air and light to the tenanted premises which fact was reported by the respondent to the MCD office against the said construction of room by the petitioner. All other averments made in the petition were denied by the respondent. E157/09 Page 4 of 23
//5//
3. In order to prove her case the petitioner examined herself as PW1 and her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma, elder son of the petitioner was examined as PW2 and his affidavit Ex. PW2/A. The document exhibited are the sale deed Ex. PW1/1, ration card is Ex. PW 1/2, site plan Ex. PW1/3, copy of school identity card of Sagarika, grand daughter of petitioner is Ex. PW1/4.
4. On the other hand respondent has examined himself as RW1 and his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A. The documents exhibited are the documents showing the different owners of the demised premises at different point of time alongwith copies of rent receipts Ex. RW1/1 (colly) wherein letter dated 08.06.1975 Ex. RW1/1A, letter dated nil sent by Sh. Ajodiya Parkash Behl is Ex. RW1/1B, the document addressed to the respondent is Ex. RW1/1C, letter dated 05.10.1993 Ex. RW1/1D and original rent receipts dated 18.08.1988 and 08.06.1987 are Ex. RW1/1E and Ex. RW1/1F, site plan Ex. RW1/2, copies of complaints made to the MCD and the police are Ex. RW1/3 (colly), rent receipts Ex. RW1/4 (colly) wherein rent receipt dated 17.12.1993 Ex. RW1/4A, rent receipt dated December, 1994 Ex. RW1/4B, rent receipt dated 22.11.1995 Ex. RW1/4C, rent receipt dated 18.05.1997 Ex. RW1/4D, rent receipt for the period August, 1997 to 1998 is E157/09 Page 5 of 23 //6// Ex. RW1/4E, rent receipt of the period August, 1998 to August, 1999 Ex. RW1/4F, rent receipt of August, 1999 to August, 2000 Ex. RW1/4G, rent receipt August, 2000 to August, 2001 Ex. RW1/4H, rent receipt August, 2001 to August, 2002 is Ex. RW1/4I.
5. Arguments heard. Ld. counsel for the respondent has also filed written argument. Record perused and considered.
6. Ld. counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following rulings:
(i) Benson Shoes Vs. Chuni Lal Thakkar, 2010 RLR 46 (Note).
7. Ld. counsel for the respondents relied upon the following rulings :
(i) Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Vs. State, 174 (2010) DLT 214.
(ii) Mrs. Sapna Singh Pathania & Anr. Vs. Jagdish Chander Mehta & Ors., 75 (1998) DLT 725.
(iii) Kishan Chand Vs. Jagdish Pershad and others, (2003) 9 Supreme Court Cases 151.
(iv) O.P.Gupta Vs. R.K.Sharma, 90 (2001) DLT 276.
(v) S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by
LRs and others, (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1.
E157/09 Page 6 of 23
//7//
8. The present petition has been filed U/s 14(1)(e) r/w 25(B) of DRC Act and in order to succeed in such a petition, petitioner has to prove (i) ownership of the suit premises; (ii) purpose of letting; (iii) alternative accommodation and (iv) bonafide requirement.
Ownership & Purpose of Letting
9. The respondent has disputed the ownership of the petitioner but he has not disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondent has also disputed the purpose of letting. However both the ingredients of ownership and purpose of letting already decided by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 22.09.2007 in favour of the petitioner while disposing the leave to defend application of the respondent by holding that "The petitioner being the owner of the property in question as well as the landlady, the respondent is estopped from challenging her title which otherwise is based on the documents as have been filed on record as already stated above". Similarly it is further held in said order "I do not find any substance in the contention of the respondent that the property was let out for residential cum commercial purposes when the entire unit is residential unit as well as is being used for the same purposes".
E157/09 Page 7 of 23
//8//
10. The respondent has not challenged the said order, therefore, same became final. Even otherwise, the respondent has admitted in his cross examination that the petitioner is owner of the property since 1992. So far the purpose of letting is concerned, after the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union Of India III (2008) SLT 553, an eviction petition is maintainable on the ground of bonafide requirement in respect of the property which were let out for commercial purposes.
Alternative accommodation & bonafide requirement
11. PW1 deposed that the accommodation in possession of the petitioner consisted of one drawing room, one dining, two bed rooms, kitchen, verandah, open terrace and two W.C and one room on the second floor. Sizes of the rooms are very small. The present accommodation is on the first floor of the property which is insufficient looking into growing needs of the petitioner. One of the sons sleeps in the drawing room on account of shortage of accommodation. PW1 further deposed that she lost her husband and now her family consists of herself, two sons, two daughters in law, one grand daughter and two grand sons. PW1 further deposed that Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma, son of the petitioner owned a house in Gurgaon and he was living with the petitioner at Delhi in the suit property alongwith the petitioner. The E157/09 Page 8 of 23 //9// accommodation in possession of the respondent was shown in red color in site plan Ex. PW1/3. The same is correct according to the site. The respondent had intentionally filed a false site plan. PW1 further deposed that the accommodation in possession of the respondent was required bona fide by the petitioner for herself and for the members of her family dependent upon her. Both the children were dependent on the petitioner for the purpose of residence. Except the accommodation on the first floor of the property which was shown in yellow color, the petitioner is not in possession of any accommodation and she did not own any other house in Delhi except the suit property.
12. PW1 deposed in her cross examination that her elder son namely Arun Kumar Sharma was working in electronic company and her younger son namely Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sharma was doing his own business and running a finance company. PW1 further deposed that her son Sanjay Kumar Sharma alongwith his partner Sh. Nirmal Chowdhary was the owner of an office at Patel Nagar and he was residing separately from her. PW1 further deposed that her second son is residing on rent in Pitam Pura and the address of the house is 143, second floor, Harsh Vihar, New Delhi but she had not brought the rent receipt of the said rented accommodation and could produce the E157/09 Page 9 of 23 //10// same, if issued by the landlord. PW1 further deposed that her elder son Sh. Arun Sharma was residing with her and he owned a house in Gurgaon and likely purchased the said house in the year 2004 but never lived in that house. He was working in the office at Parparganj and sometime was in Delhi and sometime they sent him outside. PW1 further deposed that son of Arun Sharma namely Anmol Sharma was studying in X standard in Central School, Gole Market and his daughter namely Sagrika Sharma was studying in VI standard in St. Thomas School, Karol Bagh. Arun is living with her from the very beginning in this house. PW1 further deposed that she had purchased this house in the year 1992 and prior to this she was residing in her father in law's house at Santrasan, Paharganj, New Delhi and its number is 1268. PW 1 further deposed that at the time of filing of the present petition she was in possession of one kitchen, one store, one bed room, one drawing room, two W.C and one bathroom on the first floor and one bed room and one bath room on the second floor. Later on she raised the construction and covered the lobby with an RCC roof and it is not a room. Stairs are going from the said covered lobby. PW1 further deposed that both her sons were self dependent and they were not dependent upon her rather she was dependent upon them. PW1 further deposed that at present she was in possession of one drawing room, one bed room, one kitchen, one store, one WC and first floor and one E157/09 Page 10 of 23 //11// bed room and one bathroom on the second floor. There was no dining room in her possession. She did not know that she had mentioned in the present petition that she had dining room also. PW1 further deposed that she had not mentioned about having a dining room to her counsel at the time of drafting of this petition. PW1 deposed voluntarily that lobby was construed as dining room. She had a only one bed room at first floor. She did not know how it had come as two bed rooms in her petition. PW2 Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma has also supported the case of the petitioner in his evidence.
13. RW1 deposed in his evidence that the site plan filed by the petitioner showing the existence of two rooms, one dining room, one lobby, one kitchen on the first floor and one room, one bathroom and open terrace on the second floor was wrong and incorrect. RW1 further deposed that there were six rooms on the first floor and two rooms on the second floor of the property. The portion where the petitioner had shown to be a lobby infact there existed one room and one kitchen. The space shown as kitchen had also been wrongly shown as the same was a full fledged room as such there were six rooms including kitchen on the first floor. The petitioner had claimed and shown one room on the first floor but actually there were two rooms on the second floor. The petitioner had not come in court with clean hands and E157/09 Page 11 of 23 //12// concealed the factum of existence of accommodation in her possession. The respondent had filed the site plan Ex. RW1/2 showing the correct position of the accommodation available with the petitioner. RW1 further deposed that petitioner had concealed that her elder son Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma owned a flat bearing no. F704, Paarth Executive Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Gurgaon Haryana and he was residing in the said flat at Gurgaon alongwith his family members. The petitioner had concealed that before purchasing the demised premises in the year 1992, she was residing in her father in law's house bearing no. 1268 at Sangtranshan, Paharganj, New Delhi which came to the share of husband of the petitioner from the joint property owned by her father in law and the property is still with the petitioner. RW1 further deposed that petitioner had falsely stated that her younger son Sanjay Sharma was residing separately in rented accommodation at house no 143. Second floor, Harsh Vihar, Pitam Pura, New Delhi and she failed to produce any rent receipt of the same. The ground floor of house no. 143 is occupied by Pramod Sharma, first floor is vacant and locked and second floor is owned and occupied by Sh. Ambey Prasad. Sh. Sanjay Sharma was owner of property in Patel Nagar, New Delhi. PW1 further deposed that younger son of the petitioner was residing with the petitioner but admittedly he alongwith his wife had also left the suit property and the accommodation E157/09 Page 12 of 23 //13// which was given to him and his family is now in possession of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner also expired after filing of the present petition resulting into the requirement of lesser accommodation by the petitioner.
14. RW1 deposed in his cross examination that the petitioner was owner of the property since 1992. The petitioner had two sons, both are married. One was having two children and the other was having one child. The eldest grand son must be of 1516 years old. The youngest child must be of 7 yrs of age. RW1 further deposed that he got the site plan prepared from Sh. Kishan Gopal. The same has been prepared at Tis Hazari. He cannot tell the date, month and year when the architect went to the spot to prepare the site plan. He got the site plan prepared in the presence of the husband of the petitioner as he (respondent) was having good relations with him. RW1 admitted that he had not specified the portion in occupation of the petitioner in the site plan Ex. RW1/2. The portion mark A in Ex. RW1/2 was a verandah which was covered by the petitioner. It was covered in the year 2004. He could not tell the measurement of room mark B in plan Ex. RW1/2 as this is the job of architect. RW1 further deposed that none of the children of the petitioner is residing in the suit premises. Again said, after death of husband of the petitioner one son namely Sh. Arun Sharma had started living with the E157/09 Page 13 of 23 //14// petitioner and he stayed only four days in a month. One son of Sh. Arun Sharma studied in Central School at Gole Market but he did not know where his daughter study. Sanjay Sharma had shifted from the disputed property after filing of the present petition. It is wrong that he has shifted due to lack of accommodation in the suit property. RW1 further deposed that he had enquired from Ambey Prasad that Sh. Sanjay Sharma was not residing at Harsh Vihar, Delhi but he could not given the month and year when he contacted Sh. Ambey Prasad. The petitioner had another house in Sangatrashan, Paharganj which was given on rent. The tenants in said house as temporary workers who work on daily wages.
15. After going through the entire record, the case of the petitioner in nutshell is that she is residing in the suit property on the first floor having one drawing room, one dining, two bed rooms, kitchen, verandah, open terrace, two W.C and one room on the second floor with bathroom. The petitioner is residing in the suit premises alongwith her elder son, his wife and two children. The younger son of the petitioner had left the suit property due to lack of accommodation and residing in a rented accommodation. According to the petitioner she is not having sufficient accommodation for herself and her family members. The petitioner does not own any other property in Delhi and E157/09 Page 14 of 23 //15// she bona fide requires the suit premises. On the other hand the defence of the respondent is that the petitioner is having six rooms including kitchen on the first floor and two rooms on the second floor in the suit property. The elder son of the petitioner is residing with his family in his own house at Gurgaon. The younger son of the petitioner is also living separately from the petitioner in his own accommodation. The sons of the petitioner do not depend upon the petitioner. The further defence of the respondent is that the petitioner also own a property at Shantrashan, Paharganj which is presently in occupation of other tenants but the petitioner has concealed this property and not come to the court with clean hands.
16. The petitioner has deposed in her cross examination that she is in possession of one drawing room, one bed room, one kitchen, one store, one W.C and one bathroom on the first floor and one bed room and one bathroom on the second floor. There is no dining room in her possession. However, the petitioner has deposed in her affidavit for evidence Ex. PW1/A that she is in possession of one drawing room, one dining, two bed rooms, kitchen, veranda, open terrace and W.C and one room on the second floor. There is contradiction in the deposition of petitioner regarding one bed room and dinning room on the first floor. Ld. counsel for the respondent submitted that E157/09 Page 15 of 23 //16// the petitioner has filed a false affidavit and as there are contradiction in the deposition of petitioner, her evidence cannot be relied upon. Ld. counsel for petitioner submitted that the lobby was construed as dining room and the petitioner has clarified the same in her evidence. Ld. counsel further submitted that the petitioner has stated the accommodation as described in her site plan. After going through the deposition of petitioner, I am of the considered view that it is a minor contradiction that petitioner has deposed in her affidavit that there are two bed rooms but in the cross examination she deposed that she had only one bed room. The petitioner has not deposed more bed rooms in her cross examination. The petitioner has also clarified that the lobby has been construed as dining room. Minor discrepancies not going to the root of the matter would not permit rejection of evidence. Every honest and truthful witness may differ in some details. There are some discrepancies in the petition also as it is stated that the family of petitioner consist of his wife, himself, two sons etc whereas, the fact is the petitioner is a woman then how she could have a wife. It is further stated that the petitioner is retired from Government job and drawing a pension but the fact is husband of the petitioner retired from job government job and was drawing a pension. Whether such minor discrepancies can be fatal for the petitioner. Answer is no. It is held in Mukesh Kumar Vs. Rishi Prakash, 2009 (2) RCR 485 E157/09 Page 16 of 23 //17// "Pleading are loosely drafted in the courts and the courts should not scrutinize the pleading with such meticulous care so as to result in genuine claims being defeated on frivolous grounds". Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1976 SC 461. Relying upon above said ruling I am of the considered view that the discrepancy in the deposition of petitioner and the discrepancy made in the petition are trivial in nature and cannot be considered to be fatal to the case of the petitioner. As the petitioner has deposed in her affidavit that there are two bed rooms on the first floor alongwith other accommodation, therefore, that deposition of petitioner shall be considered as correct and not one bed room as deposed by her in her cross examination unless the respondent proves that the petitioner has more bed rooms on first floor.
17. The respondent deposed that petitioner is in possession of six rooms including kitchen on the first floor and two bed room on the second floor as shown in the site plan Ex. RW1/2. I have compared the site plan Ex. PW1/3 filed by the petitioner and the site plan Ex. RW1/2 filed by the respondent. The first difference between the two site plans is regarding the space which is shown as lobby in the site plan of the petitioner but a room and kitchen have been shown in the site plan of the respondent. All other portions are exactly E157/09 Page 17 of 23 //18// same, on the first floor. However, I find in Ex. RW1/2 that the room adjacent to the drawing room is not having its door entry. Similarly, the door of the kitchen is opening in room marked 'A' and the stairs are also shown in room marked 'A'. Not only this, one more room which is marked 'C' today in Ex. RW1/2 is opening its door in the kitchen. The question arises why the room adjacent to the drawing room is not having the door and how the space which is having the stairs and also entry to the kitchen can be considered a room. Not only this, how it is possible that the kitchen is having two entries one from room marked 'C' and another from room marked 'A'. If it is so then both the rooms A and C cannot be used as bed rooms as there is no privacy in said rooms. Similarly, the respondent has shown two rooms on the second floor but both the rooms have common entry in the middle of them. It is not clear how one can enter in those two rooms because both the rooms are closed from all the four sides. Hence it is proved that the site plan Ex. RW1/2 filed by the respondent is not according to the site and there are not six rooms on the first floor and two rooms on the second floor in possession of the petitioner as claimed by the respondent. The draftsman has not visited the suit property before drafting the site plan Ex. RW1/2. Hence I am of the considered view that the site plan filed by the respondent is not correct. E157/09 Page 18 of 23
//19//
18. The further defence of the respondent is that elder son of the respondent is residing in his own flat at Gurgaon with his family and the younger son of the petitioner is also living separately from the petitioner and the petitioner does not need accommodation for them as they are self dependent. The respondent further contended that the petitioner concealed the fact that her elder son owned a flat at Gurgaon. I do not find any substance in these contentions of the respondent. The respondent himself stated that one son of elder son of the petitioner is studying in Central School at Gole Market. Respondent further deposed that the younger son has shifted from the disputed premises after filing of the present petition. The petitioner has filed the copy of ration card Ex PW1/2 showing that both his sons were residing with the petitioner in the suit premises alongwith their family members. The petitioner has also filed the photocopy of school ICard of Sagarika Sharma d/o Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma showing her residential address of the suit property. From the deposition of petitioners as well as of respondent and the documents Ex PW1/2 and Ex PW1/4 it is proved that Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma elder son of the petitioner is residing alongwith his family members in the suit property. The respondent has admitted that Sh.Sanjay Sharma, younger son of the petitioner has shifted from the disputed premises after filing of the present petition. It itself proves that he E157/09 Page 19 of 23 //20// has shifted from the suit property due to lack of accommodation and therefore he is living separately from the petitioner. The contention of the respondent that younger son has left the suit property,therefore, the accommodation has increased with the petitioner, has no substance. When a family member left the house due to lack of accommodation then it cannot be said that accommodation increased. It only proves the insufficient of accommodation with the landlord. The petitioner wants that her younger son also reside alongwith his family with her in the suit property, I am of the considered view this requirement of the petitioner cannot be said malafide one. In Indian society all the parents want that their sons and grand children live with them in their old age. Such a need of petitioner is always bona fide. Other contention of the respondent that sons of the petitioner do not depend upon the petitioner and instead the petitioner depend upon her son has no merit. It is held in M.M.Mehta Vs. Chaman Lal,1980 RLR(Note)30 that "that it is well settled that a member of the family although not financially dependent on the landlord but living together with him is covered by the word dependent used in section 14 (1) (e)".
19. Ld. counsel for respondent further submitted that the petitioner has concealed that she is also owner of property at Santrashan, Paharganj, New E157/09 Page 20 of 23 //21// Delhi in which she was residing before purchasing the property in question. Ld. counsel further submitted that the petitioner has deliberately concealed this material fact in order to evict the respondent from the tenanted premises. Ld. counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is neither the owner of the said property nor in possession of the same. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is owner of the house no. 1268, Santrashan, Paharganj, New Delhi. The petitioner has merely deposed that prior to purchase of the suit property in 1992 she was residing in her father in law's house in Santrashan, Paharganj, New Delhi. The question arises whether merely on this deposition of the petitioner it can be assumed that after the death of the father in law of the petitioner she became the owner of the said house. I am of the considered view that the respondent failed to prove that petitioner owns the house no. 1268, Santrashan, Paharganj, New Delhi. It is also important to mention here that, if the house at Santrashan, Paharganj, New Delhi was suitable to the needs of the petitioner and his family members then why did he shift to the suit property alongwith his entire family in the year 1992. It clearly shows that the said house was not suitable for the requirement of the petitioner in the year 1992 then how it can be assumed that now the said house would be suitable for the petitioner to meet her requirement. Not only this, according to the respondent himself the said E157/09 Page 21 of 23 //22// house is in occupation of other tenants. If the said house is in occupation of other tenant then how it can be said to be alternative accommodation with the petitioner.
20. In view of the above discussions it is proved that the petitioner is in possession of rooms/accommodation on the first and second floor in the suit property as shown in the site plan Ex. PW1/3. The petitioner has no alternate accommodation with her. The accommodation with the petitioner is only one drawing room, one dining room, two bed rooms, kitchen and two W.C on the first floor and bed room on the second floor. Whereas the family of the petitioner consists of herself, two married sons, their wives and three grand children of age given between 8 to 17 years. Considering the size of the family of the petitioner she needs at least five bed rooms. One for herself, one each for married sons, two bed room for grand children but the petitioner has only three bed rooms. The death of the husband of the petitioner has not shrunk the requirement of petitioner. Still she needs at least five bed rooms. Even the size of the bed rooms is very small, therefore, the accommodation available with the petitioner is highly insufficient and the need of the petitioner to get the tenanted premises from the respondent is bona fide. It is held in Siddalingamma Vs. Mamta Shenoy (2001) 8 SCC 561 "Law does not demand E157/09 Page 22 of 23 //23// that landlord be prevented from living in comfort in his own house and be forced to live in inadequate premises in order that tenant's occupancy of tenancy premises may be protected".
21. Hence the petitioner succeeds in proving all the ingredients of section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act. The rulings relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the respondent are not applicable to the facts of present case. Accordingly the present petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act is allowed and an eviction order is passed in respect of the suit premises i.e one room, front tinshed, open roof with laterine on second floor of property no. 2397,Tilak Gali, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi55 more specifically shown in red colour in site plan Ex. PW1/3. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the eviction order executed before expiry of 6 months running from today. No order as to costs.
(Announced in the open court
on 31.10.2011) (Pritam Singh)
ARC/Central/Delhi
E157/09 Page 23 of 23