The landlord's bona fide need for the tenanted premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and the tenant's liability for use and occupation charges.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. This petition has been filed assailing the eviction order dated 16.07.2019 passed by Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in eviction petition bearing no. E-72/15, whereby, the Petitioner, tenant's, application seeking leave to defend was dismissed and the eviction order was passed in favour of the Respondent, landlady, in respect of portion of property no. 826, ground floor, Block-F, Rai Bahadur Beishakha Singh Building, Joshi Road, New Delhi (`subject property').

2. The tenanted premises, which was let out to the (now deceased) father of the Petitioner herein comprises of four (4) rooms, bathroom and a kitchen on the ground floor, as shown in the red colour in the site plan annexed with the eviction petition (`tenanted premises'). The Petitioner, tenant, as well has filed a site plan with her leave to defend application, enlisting the user of the various rooms forming part of the tenanted premises. There is no contradiction in the site plans filed by either party as regards the location and number of the rooms on the ground floor.

3. The eviction petition was filed by the Respondent, landlady, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (`DRC Act') on the plea that she bona fide requires the tenanted premises for her personal residence and the residence of her family members. It was stated in the eviction petition that the landlady's family comprises of herself, her spouse and her then two school going children (a son and a daughter). It was disclosed that neither the landlady nor her husband has any other suitable alternate accommodation available to them in Delhi.

3.1. It was stated in the eviction petition that the landlady is currently residing with her family at her paternal home and she does not wish to reside there any further and thus, requires the tenanted premises for her immediate family's residence.

3.2. The landlady in her eviction petition had categorically asserted that the Petitioner herein i.e., the tenant, is not residing in the tenanted premises and the premises are lying vacant and unused.

3.3. The tenant in her rejoinder filed to the leave to defend application admitted that the premises are lying locked and unused; she pleaded that she is unable to use the tenanted premises since there was no electricity connection in the subject property since the year 2014.

4. The Petitioner, tenant filed her application seeking leave to defend, wherein, it was stated that the tenanted premises were originally let out to the Petitioner's father, Sh. N.S. Hoon, who passed away in 1960. It is stated that thereafter, the tenancy was inherited by Petitioner's mother, Smt. Surjit Kaur, who as well passed away on 17.05.2009. It is stated that thus, in the year 2009 the tenancy devolved upon the Petitioner herein being the sole legal heir of her parents.

4.1. The Petitioner, tenant, resisted the eviction petition on the ground that the landlady has available to her sufficient alternate accommodations, details whereof are as under:

(i) J-130, Reserve Bank Enclave, Block-J Paschim Vihar, Delhi (`matrimonial home');

(ii) 16/316 Khajor Road, Dr. Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (`paternal home'); and

(iii) the other one-half (1/2) of the subject property on the ground floor consisting of four (4) rooms, toilet, open courtyard and lobby which is lying vacant.

4.2. The tenant contended that the landlady does not have a bona fide need for the tenanted premises, recovery whereof is sought only for the purpose of re-development.

Arguments of the parties

5. Mr. S.M. Gupta, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that after passing of the eviction order, the Petitioner, tenant, has learnt that the landlady had purchased a property bearing no. XIV/415-416, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on 15.11.2011 (`Property No. 415-416 at Joshi Road') jointly with a third-party namely Mrs. Anuradha Jain and has sold the said property