SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.

1. The petitioner, who was a tenant in the first floor of the premises bearing No.2-B, Commissioner Lane, (Kirpa Narain Marg), Delhi-110006 on a monthly rent of Rs.800 per month since 1971, has preferred this revision petition against the order of learned Rent Controller dated 13th November 2007 whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioner for leave to defend. The land lady had filed the eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act claiming that she required the premises for her bona fide requirements.

2. The land lady contended that she was in possession of first floor and second floor of her premises. The accommodation available with her was three rooms with a drawing-cum-dinning room on the first floor and store room and a tin shed on the second floor. She was having a mentally retarded son incapable of looking after himself, therefore, one of her grandchildren namely Udit, was residing with her so as to help her mentally retarded son, who required one attendant. She(landlady) herself was of old age and was suffering from cancer and other diseases. She had to go through chemotherapy twice a month. It had become increasingly difficult for her to climb to the first floor. Her married daughters were helping her in her daily rituals by coming and staying with her. The married daughters have minors sons and as and when they come, the landlady required a guest room and a study room for the children of her married daughters.

.3. The leave to defend was sought by the petitioner on the ground that the landlady had filed another petition under Section 14D of the Act, which was pending between the parties since long. The landlady was not expediting the disposal of that petition and the instant petition filed during pendency of the earlier petition, was not maintainable. The

.other ground taken was that the landlady had other accommodation at her disposal. She could easily live along with her relatives and her retarded son on the first floor and second floor. She also had premises at 6-Commissioner Lane where she had five bedrooms available with her.

4. The pendency of the petition under Section 14 D of the Act was considered no ground to grant leave to defend. The other contentions raised by the petitioner were also found untenable so as to grant leave to defend. The learned trial court observed that the petitioners contention that the adjoining property at 6, Commissioner Lane, was available to the landlady, was not correct. It was admitted by the petitioner that a play school had been running at the property 6, Commissioner Lane earlier. The photographs of the property had been filed by the landlady to show that the portion fallen to her share consisted of only two sheds which were not habitable and could only be used for running a play school. The petitioner had not filed any site plan in order to controvert the photographs, hence the learned Rent Controller came to conclusion that the portion of the premises at 6, Commissioner Lane, available to the landlady, was not a suitable accommodation. The learned ARC also observed that the landlady cannot be asked to shift to other property merely for the convenience of the tenant. The other property was required by her either for selling the same so as to meet the huge expenses being incurred by her on her cancer treatment or to let out the premises for running a school so as to have financial assistance.

5. Learned ARC found that the requirement of the landlady was bona fide. She was suffering from cancer and was of old age. She could not be compelled to live on the first floor, as it had become increasingly difficult for her to climb the stairs.

6. It was not disputed before the ARC that the landlady was suffering from cancer. She had placed on record documents showing that she was undergoing cancer treatment. The ARC also concluded that her mentally retarded son would require one bedroom and the grandchild of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document