IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA, ARC01, EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI. [CASE NUMBER] E237/11 Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Sh. Anil Kumar R/o B95, Gali No. 8, East Azad Nagar, Delhi - 110051. Petitioner Versus Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Rama Shankar, R/o B95, Gali No. 8, 2nd Floor, East Azad Nagar, Delhi - 110051. Respondent Application for leave to defend moved on behalf of respondent in [CASE NUMBER] Date of institution of petition : 12/12/2011 Date on which Order was reserved : 30/04/2012 Date of Order : 05/05/2012 Final Order : Application for leave to defend is dismissed and eviction petition is allowed. ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed by the respondent u/[SECTION] of the Act, seeking leave to defend and contest the eviction petition in hand.
2. Petitioner has filed present petition for eviction of respondents u/s 14 (1)
(e) of the [ACT].
3. Briefly stated, the relevant contentions of the petitioner are as follows:
a) Petitioner is the landlady and owner of property no. B95, Gali No. nd 8, 2 Floor, East Azad Nagar, Delhi-110051, consisting of one room, kitchen, toilet and bathroom, as shown in red colour in the site plan.
b) Respondent was inducted in aforesaid property as tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 3000/ excluding other charges, in the year 2003. No written agreement was executed at that time.
c) Family of petitioner consists of herself, her husband and two sons. Elder son is doing private job and younger son is pursuing B.Sc.
d) The entire property is built up in 50 sq. yds. There is a clinic of husband of petitioner on the ground floor. Out of two rooms on first floor, one room is being used as bedroom and another room is being used as drawing room. Out of two rooms on second floor, one room is occupied by younger son of petitioner, which is being used as study room.
e) The marriage of elder son of the petitioner was fixed with Ms. [ENTITY] for February, 2012 and petitioner is facing the problem of scarcity of accommodation for her son and daughterinlaw, hence this petition.
4. In the application for leave to defend and affidavit, respondent has taken following relevant plea:
a) Petitioner is having sufficient accommodation for her living. Presently she is occupying ground and first floor of the property. She is also having one room at the second floor.
b) In case of marriage of son of petitioner, one room on the second floor of the property can be occupied by him.
5. In reply/counter affidavit to the application for leave to defend, petitioner has reiterated the plea taken in the petition and denied that she has sufficient accommodation. Ld. counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following case laws: a. [PRECEDENT]. b. [ENTITY] S/o [PRECEDENT]. c. [PRECEDENT].
d. [PRECEDENT]. e. [PRECEDENT]. f. [PRECEDENT]. Findings:
6. I shall first deal with the requirement under [SECTION] [ACT] to seek eviction of a tenant. Under [SECTION] [ACT], petitioner has to satisfy the following ingredients.
i) Petitioner has to be landlord as well as owner of the tenanted property.
ii) The premises should be required bona fide by the landlord for his occupation or for occupation of any member of his family dependent upon him.
iii) Landlord or such person dependent upon landlord should not have other reasonable or suitable accommodation in Delhi.
7. In the present case respondent has not disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He has even not denied the title of ownership of the petitioner. His only plea is that petitioner has sufficient accommodation with her. He has suggested that newly married couple can occupy a room on second floor of the property, which is under possession of petitioner. However, it has to be seen that whether such contentions of respondent are sufficient to contest this petition?
8. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as [PRECEDENT] held that landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and place where he has to live. Court or tenant cannot dictate in what manner he should live, where he should live nor Court can impose its own standards on landlord. Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that respondent is not entitled to decide for the petitioner that how she should adjust her newly married son in the existing accommodation. Respondent has not disputed the description of available accommodation in this property, nor has he disputed the description of family members of petitioner. Petitioner is well entitled to have separate rooms for each member of her family. She is also entitled to have a drawing room and guest room. Therefore, a total number of three rooms in the whole property beside the clinic on the ground floor cannot be said to be sufficient for the family of petitioner. Even if clinic on the ground floor is assumed to be a room, I find that the same cannot be sufficient for the petitioner. Therefore, there remains no doubt in respect of bona fide need of the petitioner.
9. In [PRECEDENT], Supreme Court held that once it is not disputed that the landlord is in bona fide need of the premises, it is not for the Courts to say that he should shift to the first floor or any higher floor. The Court cannot dictate to the landlord which floor he should use for his business, that is for the landlord himself to decide. Thus, there remains no doubt that contentions raised by the respondent are not sustainable.
10. Therefore, in view of my aforesaid findings and observations, I find that respondent has failed to disclose any fact, which can dis entitle the petitioner from seeking eviction order in this case. Hence, application for leave to defend is dismissed.
11. Eviction petition is hereby allowed and respondent is directed to vacate property no. B95, Gali No. 8, 2nd Floor, East Azad Nagar, Delhi-110051, consisting of one room, kitchen, toilet and bathroom, as shown in red colour in the site plan filed by petitioner, within six months as provided under [SECTION] of [ACT].
File be consigned to record room.
(Announced in the open (PULSTYA PRAMACHALA) Court on 05.05.2012) ARC01, East, Karkardooma, This order contains 5 pages 05.05.2012