INDER SINGH Vs. RANA INDERJIT SINGH JHALAWAR
LAWS(DLH)-1983-1-30
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on January 14,1983

INDER SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Rana Inderjit Singh Jhalawar Respondents




JUDGEMENT

J.D.JAIN, J. - (1.)THIS revision petition is directed against order dated 12th November 1980 of the Controller, Delhi, whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner-tenant for leave to contest and passed an order of eviction against her on the ground of bonafide personal requirement of the premises in dispute by the respondent-landlord as envisaged in clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) read with Section 258 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act').
(2.)THE facts of this case lie in narrow compass. The respondent Rana Inderjit Singh is an ex-Ruler of a princely State named Jhalawar (Rajasthan). He owns property bearing No. C-301, Defence Colony, New Delhi. It is a three-storeyed building. The petitioner is a tenant under him in respect of the first floor and the barasti floor besides a servant quarter on the second floor of the garage block. The demised premises are delineated in red in the site-plan filed by the respondent alongwith the eviction petition. The rent payable in respect of the demised premises is Rs. 1,000/- per mensem exclusive of water and electricity charges.
In May, 1983 the respondent-landlord moved an application for ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises on the ground of bonafide personal requirement for his own residence and for the residence of the members of his family who were dependent upon him. It was alleged that he was residing in the ground floor of the property in question alongwith the members of his family comprising his grand-mother, mother, wife, a son aged 9 years and a daughter aged about 2 years. Besides that he had two maid servants and two male servants and a driver who were also living there in the servant quarter. The accommodation with him consisted of only a drawing-cum-dining room, two bed rooms, toilets, kitchen, garage and a servant room, as shown in the site-plan filed by him. He averred that the said accommodation was not sufficient and reasonably suitable for residence for himself and members of his family and as such he bonafide needed more accommodation befitting his status as an ex-Ruler of a State.

(3.)THE petitioner moved an application for leave to contest as contemplated by Section 25B(4) of the Act. She asserted that the accommodation in the possession of the respondent was quite sufficient having regard to the small size of his family, namely, his wife and two minor children. She pointed out that the respondent was not himself living at Delhi but was living at Jhalawar where he had spacious accommodation. However, he was visiting Delhi one or twice in a month. She denied that the mother and grandmother of the respondent were residing with him or that any people were visiting him at Delhi because of his being an ex-Ruler of Jhalawar State. She further averred that the respondent had another spacious residential building in Jor Bagh, New Delhi, which had been rented out to some other tenant against whom he had filed an eviction petition on the ground of bonafide personal requirement and as and when the said accommodation fell vacant he could shift there. Lastly, she called in question the bonafide of the respondent saying that he had several times requested her to increase the rent by atleast Rs. 800/- per mensem or to vacate the premises, but she declined to oblige him. She filed an affidavit in support of these contentions.
;


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