AMARJIT SINGH Vs. KHATOON QUAMARAIN
LAWS(DLH)-1983-3-21
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on March 21,1983

AMARJIT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
KHATOON QUAMARAIN Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

PUSHPA WADHAWAN VS. EXPORTS INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1997-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAM DEVI VS. MOOL CHAND BHATIA [LAWS(DLH)-1987-9-46] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Yogeshwar Dayal - (1.)This is a petition for revision under the proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the order of eviction passed against the petitioner, S. Amarjit Singh by the court of 1st Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 11th August, 1981 in favour of Mrs. Khatoon Quamarain wife of late Shri A. L. Quamarain, hereinafter referred to as the "landlady".
(2.)The landlady had filed a petition for eviction on or about 3-1-1977 against the' petitioner for his eviction from the first floor of the premises situate at C-62, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi along with a garage on the ground floor with a servant quarter above the garage as per the plan filed with the petition for eviction. The eviction petition was filed on the ground of landlady's bona fide personal necessity. The premises were let on a monthly rent of Rs. 950.00 and Rs. 50.00 per month as facility of the booster pump totalling Rs. 1000.00 per month, exclusive of water and electricity charges.
(3.)The ground for eviction in the petition was that the petitioner is the owner of the premises. She bona fidely requires the same for her own residence and for the residence of members of her family and she is not in possession of any other suitable residential accommodation. She was, at the time of filing of the petition, living as guest of her niece in house No. D-36, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi and could not continue residing there permanently or indefinitely and that the accommodation with her niece is only two bedrooms with a common bathroom and that her niece wants her mother to stay with her and would like the landlady to shift as soon as she can. It was stated that she wag a working woman and for meeting her clients she needs accommodation as she wag working as an executive in an advertising agency. It was also stated that the landlady is a social worker and has her own sphere of activities That there are two flats in building No. G-62, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi and that the landlady needs to let out one of the floors of that building to draw income to support herself which is her only source of livelihood and the ground floor of the premises at the time of filing of the petition was in occupation of New Zealand Embassy at Rs. 2500.00 per month as rent. So she wants to keep the ground floor let out to somebody to draw decent amount as rent and the only premises left for residence are the premises under the tenancy of the tenant herein. It was further stated that on 14th March, 1974, the landlady had earlier also filed an eviction application against M/s. Jaaj Timber Product (P) Ltd. on the ground that the said company was her tenant of the first floor of the suit premiges and were required for residence. In earlier petition, a written statement was filed by the present petitioner herein who was the Managing Director of that company. The landlady had also on 17-4-76 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 35,000.00 as arrears of rent for the period 1-5-73 to 31-3-76. But in both the earlier eviction petition and the suit for the recovery of rent, the afore said company took up the position that the company was not a tenant but the petitioner alone was the tenant and this contention of the petitioner was upheld vide the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 1-11-1976 and it was found that S. Amarjit Singh alone was a tenant in his individual capacity. Consequently, the earlier petition for eviction failed though the decree for Rs. 34050.00 with proportionate costs was passed against S. Amarjit Singh but the suit against the company was dismissed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.