The landlord's right to choose the property for residence as per her own suitability and the requirement of ownership under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioners-tenants challenging the Order dated 04.02.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”) passed by the learned ACJ/ARC/CCJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Rent Controller”) in case RC ARC No. 5760/16, titled as Rukmani Devi vs. Salim Khan and Ors., whereby the application seeking leave to defend filed by the predecessor of the petitioners has been dismissed and their eviction has been ordered in respect to one room with a front varandah on the first floor of the property bearing no. WZ-549/A, Naraina Village, New Delhi-110028 (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Property”).

2. The respondent-landlady filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the petitioners claiming to be the owner of the Suit Property comprising of ground floor and first floor. It was stated that the Suit Property was let out for residential purpose to one Mr. Salim Khan (predecessor of the petitioners), who expired during the pendency of the eviction petition. The petitioners being the legal heirs of Mr. Salim Khan are since contesting the present petition.

3. The respondent claimed title to the property by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 03.09.2010. The family of the respondent, as stated in the eviction petition, comprised of three sons, three daughters-in-law, seven grand-children, one unmarried and two married daughters, and a brother of her deceased husband. All members other than the married daughters were stated to be dependent upon respondent for residence/accommodation. It was further stated that the respondent required the Suit Property for residential bona fide use of the family of the respondent and had no alternate suitable accommodation.

4. In the application seeking leave to defend, the petitioners herein denied the landlord-tenant relationship with the respondent landlady and alleged the availability of alternate accommodation with the respondent.

5. By the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller held that the respondent was able to prove her bona fide need while fulfilling all the requisites mentioned in section 14(1)(e) of the Act.

6. Challenging the said Order, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained inasmuch as no documentary proof has been given by the respondent to show how the family members are dependent on the respondent for residential accommodation. He submits that infact one of the sons of the respondent is running business from a different place, while another son has settled in Bihar. He further submits that presently the respondent is residing at a property in Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi and there is no mention in the eviction petition as to why the accommodation where the respondent is residing is not suitable for her. He submits that the case of bona fide need set up by the respondent is a sham and cannot be entertained.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the respondent has alternate accommodations in Delhi in her name as also in the name of her legal heirs and therefore the finding of the learned Rent Controller on non-availability of an alternate suitable accommodation is erroneous.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submits that the Suit property being an undivided property and since it is not known under whose share the tenanted room would fall into, the respondent could not seek eviction of the petitioner from the suit property.

9. He submits that petitioners have been able to raise triable issues and therefore the impugned order should be set aside.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent requires the entire Suit property for bona fide use of her family and in this regard three eviction petitions were filed against three different tenants including petitioner- Mr. Salim Khan. He submits that in t