AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.L. Mehta, J.
CM 20761/2012 (Early hearing)
This is an application for early hearing for the matter.
Heard. In view of the submissions made therein, the application is allowed and the matter is being taken up today itself for hearing. CM stands
disposed of.
R.C. Rev. 584/2012
This revision petition u/s 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the ''Act'') is directed against the order dated 23.12.2011 of
Administrative Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Rent Controller (ARC), North East, whereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent u/s 14 (1) (e) of
the Act, was allowed, as also the order dated 25.09.2012 whereby the applications seeking review of the order of 23.12.2011 and for
condonation of delay & stay of the execution order, were dismissed. The petitioner is a tenant in a portion of the property bearing No. F-6/8A,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi under the respondent for residential purpose. Her eviction was sought from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide
requirement thereof by the respondent for himself and his family members dependent upon him. After the leave to defend was granted to the
petitioner, the petition was put on trial. Both the parties led their respective evidence. The learned ARC vide the impugned judgment dated
23.12.2011 held the respondent to be entitled to seek eviction of the petitioner and, he consequently passed the eviction order against her.
Thereafter, the respondent filed the execution of the eviction order, to which, the petitioner filed objections and she also filed an application u/s
25(9) of the Act read with Section 47 CPC along with the application for condonation of delay seeking review of the aforesaid eviction order. All
these came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2012. Both these orders of ARC are under challenge in the instant petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order only on the ground that the respondent has various other suitable and
alternative accommodations/properties, details of which are under:
(a) Flat No. 63, Plot No. 78, Meena Apartments, I.P. Extension, Patparganj;
(b)Two flats at Shivam Enclave out of one property bearing No. 12-C, MIG Flats, Shivam Enclave, Jhilmil Colony;
(c) Premises bearing No. 9/4779, Old Seelampur Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi &
(d) Property bearing No. 1780, Kucha Lattu Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk.
It was thus submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent did not require the suit premises bonafidely.
The plea of the respondent, on the other hand, was that he is in possession of only one room, one kitchen, common toilet and bathroom and his
family consists of himself and his wife. He also has one married son, and two married daughters, who generally visit and stay with him. It was also
his case that he was a social person and well connected. As regard to the plea of the petitioner relating to other properties available with the
respondent, it was his submission that the premises being flat No. 12-C, MIG Flat, Shivam Enclave, Jhilmil Colony was the property of his
younger brother''s wife. He further denied that he is the owner of premises No. 9/4779, Old Seelampur, Gandhi Nagar. With regard to the flat at
Meena Apartments, he submitted that this was in occupation of his son and his wife and grandsons. With regard to the premises No. 1780, Kucha
Lattu Shah, his plea was that his father was owner of only three rooms in this property and the petitioner had only one-eight undivided share in
three rooms, and none of these rooms were in his possession or occupation. One of these rooms was stated to be in possession of younger
brother and other two rooms not being used due to dispute of shareholders. It was submitted that only old furniture was lying therein.
From the evidence that was led by the respondent and which is not controverted, it was recorded as a finding of fact by the learned ARC that
the present accommodation available with the respondent in F-6/8A, Krishna Nagar, Delhi comprised of only one room and that his requirement
for attending visitors or for his son and daughters, could not be said to be lacking bona fide. This is admitted fact that the respondent is living with
his family in the portion adjacent to the tenanted premises. The requirement that has been projected by the respondent is of the tenanted premises,
which is in the same premises where he has been living with his family and thus, this would be more convenient and suitable for him than the
accommodation, if any, available with him in Kucha Lattu Shah. It is settled proposition of law that the suitability of alternative accommodation has
to be examined from the view point of the landlord as compared to the premises sought to be evicted. In view of my above discussion, I do not
see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders of ARC, whereby the eviction order was passed in favour for the respondent, and
consequently, dismissing the review application. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed in limine.