A M SHAH Vs. PUSHPA SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision has been preferred against the Eviction Order dated 7.12.2000 passed under Section 14-D read with Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act). A perusal of the Petition discloses that the Landlady, who was widowed on 15.1.1989, has two sons and two daughters. Both the sons have two children each. They have the same servant for forty years and hence a room is required for him also. A Guest Room is heeded inter alia for these married daughters who frequently visit their mother. The need-for a Pooja room is also felt. Thus the Landlady's requirement is for at least ten rooms whereas presently only three rooms are available on the ground floor, and one room on the first floor. The Landlady has averred that she is the owner of the premises and that she has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation except the demised premises.

(2.) In the application/affidavit seeking leave to contest it has been urged by the Tenant that the availability of six rooms and a big hall on the 2nd floor has deliberately not been disclosed. These rooms are occupied by students each year and the big hall is used as a factory. There is a very vague pleading viz a viz the letting of a room on the mezzanine floor and the letting of a room on the ground floor to a 'tailor' but these pleadings are so devoid of material particulars that it is immediately evident that they are false. The tenant has belaboured the point that the intention behind the petition is only to obtain an increase in the rent.

(3.) In the background of these pleadings the Additional Rent Controller has returned the finding that the petition is well founded. After articulating that the purpose of the legislation is to grant immediate possession of tenanted premises to widows requiring them bona fide for their own use, he has found that the accommodation available on the second floor is virtually uninhabitable, being made of asbestos sheeting. The Additional Rent Controller has also declined to accept the tenants' submission that the failure to mention the accommodation on the 2nd Floor amounted to concealment and suppression, which should disentitle the landlady to the relief prayed for.