Section 14(1)(e) 25B-Eviction- Ground- Bonafide requirement -Case Law

Section 14(1)(e) 25B-Eviction- Ground- Bonafide requirement -Case Law

2004 (77) DRJ 1

HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Rc. Rev. 287/1997

Sohan Singh & Ors Petitioners

Versus

Prakash Devi & Ors. Respondents

R.S. Sodhi, J.

Decided on: August 11, 2004

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

Section 14(1)(e) 25B-Eviction- Ground- Bonafide requirement- Landlord and wife of advanced age residing in a house owned by their son-Differences between landlady and daughter-in-law- Requirement of shifting to own house let out for residential purposes to a tenant found by Rent Controller as bon fide- Landlord having no suitable alternative accommodation- Eviction order not be interfered with. ………..Section 14(1)(e) 25B-Eviction- Ground- Bonafide requirement

Ms. Deepika Marwah, Advocate for the Petitioner.

[Paras 5, 7]

Mr. T.S. Upadhyaya, Advocate for the Respondent.

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. CM Appl. 9460/2004 (for restoration)

Heard. The cause shown is sufficient. Rc. Rev. 287/1997 is restored to its original file and number. CM Appl. 9460/2004 is allowed and disposed of.

………..Section 14(1)(e) 25B-Eviction- Ground- Bonafide requirement

2. Rc. Rev. 287/1997:

Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos. 3 to 10 should be deleted from the array of parties since they are not the necessary parties. The request of counsel for the petitioner is acceded to. Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 are ordered to be deleted from the array of parties.

3. Rc. Rev. 287/1997 is directed against the judgment dated 3rd October, 1996, of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi (for short the “Controller”) in E 1314/85, whereby an order of eviction in favour of the respondents herein has been passed. ……Section 14(1)(e) 25B-Eviction- Ground- Bonafide requirement

4. The brief facts of this case, as has been noted by the Controller, are under: …….Section 14(1)(e) 25B-Eviction- Ground- Bonafide requirement

“the petitioners have filed the present petition under S. 14 (1) (e) r/w S. 25 B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that they are the owner-landlords/landlady in respect of premises NO. 5045-46 Chaman Ganj, Roshanara Road, Delhi.

Sh. Harnam Singh (Smt. Rajinder Kaur) and respondent Nos. 2-11 are alleged to be co-tenants in respect of two rooms, covered verandah, kitchen, bathroom, and common latrine more specifically shown in red in the site plan attached with the petition on a monthly rent of Rs. 7.00 exclusively of electricity and water charges and for residential purposes.

Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are allegedly residing in the said premises and other respondents are allegedly not living in the said premises. It is alleged that the petitioner require the premises bona fide for their residence and for the residence of their family members dependent upon them. According to them their family consists of the petitioners aged about 66 and 70 years respectively, one son and his family which consists of his wife and two grown up children.

It is alleged that at present the petitioners are residing in the house of their son namely Sh. Balbir Kumar Chadha but because of family disputes they do not want to shift to their own house. The petitioners are alleged to have filed an eviction petition against the tenant Sh. Sakshi Narain in December, 1988 and in execution of the order of eviction the petitioners got the possession of two rooms in September, 1989 which are situated on the first floor and since they are old they require ground floor accommodation.

It is alleged that the son of the petitioners namely Sh. Ashwani Kumar is allegedly employed in telecommunication department and drawing salary of Rs. 6500/- whereas his wife is a TGT teacher in Government school drawing a salary of Rs. 3500/- apart from the fact that petitioner No. 2 is earning about Rs. 2000/- per month. It is alleged that one room is required for the petitioner whereas one room is required for his married son apart from one room each for his grown up children.

Apart from this it is alleged that petitioners require drawing room, dining room and one room for visiting children of the petitioner/guests. On these facts the petitioners pray for an order of eviction against the respondents.”

5. The Controller has held that the landlord was the owner of the premises in question and that the purpose of letting was exclusively for residential purpose. As regards the bona fide requirement, the Controller has held that the landlord requires the premises for residential accommodation as they want to shift to their own house. Secondly, the landlord and his wife are advanced in age and require to be looked after by their grown sons.

Thus, petitioner and family consisting be looked after and two grown-ups require the premises in question bonafide. …..Section 14(1)(e) 25B-Eviction- Ground- Bonafide requirement

Cited: Kusum Yadav v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board 3 ….Section 14(1)(e) 25B-Eviction- Ground- Bonafide requirement

6. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide and also that the landlord has alternative accommodation.

7. Heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case as also the material available before him. From a perusal of the judgment under challenge, I find that the landlord’s case is that he has been residing in Naraina Vihar, Delhi in a house, which is owned by his son and since there are differences between his wife and daughter-in- law, the landlord wants to shift to his premises.

It is proved that the landlord is 80 years of age and his wife is about 78 years of age. It is also the case of the landlord that he requires the assistance of his younger son Aswani Kumar and therefore, the premises in question are also required for his younger son’s family alongwith with him and his wife. ….Section 14(1)(e) 25B-Eviction- Ground- Bonafide requirement

8. From the judgment under challenge it also appears that the Controller has given cogent reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and that the landlord has no suitable accommodation. I find that the reasoning of the Controller is sound and needs no interference. Rc. Rev. 287/1997 is dismissed. ……….Section 14(1)(e) 25B-Eviction- Ground- Bonafide requirement