The financial condition of the landlord does not determine the bona fide need for accommodation.

JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J. - The learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

2. The petitioner impugns the eviction order dated 20.01.2020 on the ground that one shop is still lying vacant with the landlady; that she is now about 80 years of age and does not have bona fide need. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside.

3. The landlady had sought eviction from shop nos. 2 and 3 bearing no. WZ-217 Gali No. 7, G-Block, Shiv Vihar, Hari Nagar, New Delhi; on the ground that her two sons who are living overseas want to come back to India to start a business. The landlady-tenant relationship is not in dispute.

4. The application for leave to defend which was dismissed, had raised the following grounds that:

(i) the application is malafide, (ii) the landlady is receiving a monthly pension of Rs.60,000/- and monthly rental income of Rs.10,000/-, (iii) one of her sons lives comfortably in United Kingdom for the last 15 years and has no intention to come back to India, (iv) the landlady herself is of 76 years of age and it is not possible for a person of her age to run a daily-needs store/shop with her son, who is permanently settled in UK along with his family, (v) if vacated, the shops will merely be rented-out by the landlady at a higher rent, and (vi) she is already in possession of shop no. 2 and has no need of the tenanted premises.

5. The learned Rent Controller has held that none of the aforesaid grounds raise a triable issue. The bona fide need of the petitioner-landlady was established inasmuch as both shops nos. 2 and 3 were sought for her own needs and her sons needs. It is settled law that the landladys financial condition will not determine the bona fide need for accommodation. The impugned eviction order has dealt with the issues as under:-

"... 14.10 So far as, first contention of respondent is concerned regarding receiving of handsome pension and rent by the petitioner, the same is refuted by the petitioner in her reply to the application for leave to defend. Even otherwise, it is a settled position of law that high status of a landlord or fact of receiving pension is not an impediment for him/her to work or conduct a business. Reliance may be placed upon the case of Shamshad Ahmad & ors. v. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) through LRs & Ors, 152 (2008) DLT 301 (SC). Thus, the objection of respondent that the petitioner does not require the tenanted premises bonafidely to start a daily need store/shop owing to receiving pension or rent, is devoid of merit and cannot be constituted as a triable issue.

14.11 As regards, second contention of respondent that son of the petitioner, who is residing at present in the UK with his family and allegedly leading a lavish and comfortable life, it is averred by the petitioner in her counter affidavit that her son is not an IT professional as alleged and is engaged in temporary jobs on different occasions as a labourer. Further more, his wife is also not well qualified and sells perfume and goggles from roadside stalls. These aspects, though are of little importance as the alleged comfortable lifestyle of son of petitioner cannot be a ground to restrain petitioner, who is admittedly 76 years old, to seek company of her children, who are living abroad and willing to come back to look after her. Also, nothing credible has been brought on record by the respondent to traverse the claim of petitioner that her son wishes to come back to India permanently to settle here, support petitioner, carry out schooling of his daughter in India and open daily needs store/shop along with petitioner for earning his livelihood. It is further well settled that when the landlord shows a prima-facie case it is open to the controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of landlord is bona-fide. Reliance may be placed upon the case of Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 100, wherein it has been held that,

" ... The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of