Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1) The petitioner filed an eviction petition on the ground contained in S. 14(l)(e) read with S. 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act) on 5.6.84. The respondent is stated to be tenant with respect to two rooms, one kitchen on the first floor and a barsati on the second floor with common use of W.C. etc. forming part of property no. 296/4. Than Singh Nagar, New Delhi. The case of the petitioner landlady is that she requires the premises for her own residence and also for the residence of members of her family dependent on her for that purpose and that she has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Leave to contest the eviction petition was granted. The respondent tenant contested the eviction petition. He filed his w/s wherein apart from disputing the ownership of the petitioner of the property in suit, the tenant denied the bona fide requirement of the petitioner qua the tenancy premises. Another plea taken by the tenant was that the petition was for partial eviction since according to the tenant the terrace on the first floor was part of the tenancy premises and it was not included in the eviction petition.

(2) By the impugned order dated 6.1.1988, the learned Additional R.C. upheld the case of the petitioner on the question of bona fide requirement. However, it was held that the petitioner had failed to prove that she was the owner of the property in suit. The other plea of the tenant that the petition was for partial eviction was also accepted. It was held that the terrace on the first floor was part of the tenancy premises and since the same was not included in the eviction petition, the petition was liable to be dismissed. Thus, on the question of ownership as well as of petition being for part of tenancy premises, the petition was dismissed. The landlady has challenged the said order of the Arc by way of the present petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Act.

(4) Coming to the question of eviction petition being for partial eviction, I fail to appreciate how non-mention of an open terrace will make any difference to the eviction petition. The cases of eviction petitions being for partial eviction are really those where some substantial portions of the tenancy premises, i.e., a room or a bath room forming part of exclusive tenancy to the tenant concerned, are excluded from the eviction petition. A terrace in the property is not a place which can be used for substantial residential purposes. Merely because the petitioner has not included the terrace of the first floor in the eviction petition is not sufficient to disentitle the petitioner to seek eviction of the respondent. The respondent cannot use the terrace alone if he is evicted from rest of the tenancy premises. In such cases, the court has to look to the substance rather than to form.