Radha Paintal and Another vs Smt. Prerna Bakshi and Others

R.S. Sodhi, J.—This petition seeks to challenge the order dated 15.1.2003 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E-190/2002 whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller has decreed the eviction on a petition by the respondent u/s 14(d) of the Rent Control Act.

Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Controller are as follows:-

''''Petitioner Smt.Prerna Bakshi has claimed that she is owner-cum-landlady of property No.23/2, first floor, double storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. It has been claimed that Sh.R.S. Paintal (husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 and 3) had been inducted as tenant by the husband of the petitioner. Sh.R.S. Paintal died and after his death, all the respondents become tenants under husband of the petitioner. Husband of the petitioner also expired an, thus, all the respondents are now tenants under the petitioner. It has been claimed that premises had been rented out for residential purpose and premise are required bonafide by the petitioner for her own residence. Of her dependent daughters. She has claimed in her petition that she is having three daughters. Her two daughters are already married but regularly visit her. She has mentioned in her petition that she is presently having possession of only two rooms which are situated at the ground floor of the same property which is hardly sufficient for her and her family. She has claimed she has no other accommodation in Delhi and, thus, it has been prayed that respondent may b evicted from the tenanted premises.''''

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the widow could not maintain this petition, for neither she nor her husband has let out the premises in question and, Therefore, cannot seek an eviction u/s 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kanta Goel Vs. B.P. Pathak and Others, , where the Supreme Court has while adjudicating on a similar provision held that a widow can maintain a petition of the property is inherited by her. Since there are two conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court on this aspect, I chose the one that gives a wider meaning to the rights of a widow. In other words, I hold that the widow can maintain this petition.

In this view of the matter, I find no infirmity, irregularity, impropriety or perversity in the order under challenge.

CR 222/2003 is dismissed.