SMT. MOTIA DEVI Vs. SHRI D. P. KHOSLA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Motia Devi, the appellant is the owner and landlady of the premises in dispute consisting of four rooms, a bath, a store, a kitchen, a W/C front lawn, verandah, platform and an open courtyard along with a room thereon. She is insane and incapable of looking after her interests. She resided with her elder sister Radhka Sahni, who used to look after her.

(2.) D. P. Khosla, respondent No. 1 is the tenant of the premises under the appellant, paying a rent of Rs. 60.50 per month. The landlady filed a petition under section 14 Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against the tenant-respondent. This petition was filed through Radhka Sahni, as the guardian and next friend of the insane landlady. There were several grounds on which eviction was sought, but the main ground with which we are concerned in this appeal was that the landlady bonafide required the premises for occupation as a residence for herself and the members of her family and that she had no reasonably suitable accommodation with her. Jagannath was impleaded as respondent No. 2, on the plea that he was the sub-tenant. It was stated in the petition, that the landlady was deserted by her husband more than twelve years before the filing of the petition. She had gone insane on that account. Amongst various pleas taken in reply by the respondent it was denied that the premises were bonafide required by the appellant-landlady for occupation as a residence for herself. It was stated that she was insane and was living with her sister at 23, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi. As such she was incapable of having any independent residence of her own.

(3.) The Additional Controller came to the conclusion that the landlady could not be accommodated any longer by her sister in her own house, where she had her own large family to accommodate, more especially as her family members were no longer in a mood to tolerate the nuisance created by the landlady in her insane condition. He, therefore, considered that the landlady could easily be accommodated in her own house where she could be well looked after by her two attendants, who had already been employed for looking after her. Her sister or some other close relative could exercise a supervision over her maintenance and looking after. The landlady could not be denied her right to live in her own house. The appellant was, therefore, found to be genuinely in need of the premises in question. The Additional Controller accordingly, passed an order for recovery of possession of the premises in dispute in favour of the landlady against the respondent. They were, however, granted time till May 17, 1967 for vacating the premises. The Rent Control Tribunal in appeal, however, did not agree with the Additional Controller and set aside his judgment and dismissed the petition for eviction with costs throughout. The Tribunal referred to the notice exhibit C-2, which was served on the tenant by the landlady, wherein the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlady was not mentioned. This was sufficient to cast a serious reflection on the bonafides of the appellant. The Tribunal further found that the landlady was a complete case of psychosis schozopherenia for the last about 16 years and was completely helpless and required two attendants, one for the day and the other for the night. She was, therefore, unable to reside all alone by herself in the premises in dispute. Her son was in service as an Engineer in Calcutta where he was drawing a salary of about Rs. 1200/- per month. He refused to believe that the son would resign his job and take up some employment in Delhi and along with his wife would live in the premises in dispute to look after the landlady. This was especially so as the landlady's son had not come in the witness box. It was under these circumstances that the Tribunal dismissed the petition, as not being bonafide. Motia Devi, the landlady, has come up to this court in second appeal.