*

HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

+

C.M.(M) No.188/2008

%

Date of decision: 08.02.2008

Hari Ram Sharma

.....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sumit Kumar Khatri,

Advocate

versus

Naraini Devi Sharma

..... Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may

be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest?

VIPIN SANGHI, J

*

CM No.1876/2008

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM(M) No.188/2008 & CM No.1875/2008

1.

This petition has been filed to impugn the order passed by

the learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC), Delhi in E. 462, 463, 464

and 465/07/05 dated 06.10.2007, whereby the learned ARC has

rejected the leave to defend applications filed by the respective

tenants in the four petitions filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi

Rent Control Act filed by the respondent. The petitioner before me

was the respondent/tenant in E. 463/07/05.

2.

Admittedly, the property in question was purchased by

C.M.(M) No.188/2008

Page 1 of 7

2008:DHC:441

the respondent/landlady on 23.12.1999 from the previous owner Sh.

Ram Jot Vyas. The petitioner and the other tenants were already

occupying the different portions in the property in question bearing

Ward No.IV, Kucha Latto Shah, Dariba, Delhi-06. The petition was

filed in 2005 after waiting of the statutory period of 5 years from the

date of purchase. Learned ARC has taken note of the fact that the

respondent/landlord has four married sons, two of whom viz. Sh. R.K.

Sharma and Sh. Rajkumar Sharma are residing with the respondent

with their respective families, while two other sons are residing in

separate accommodation with their respective wives. The case made

out by the respondent/landlady was that she bona fide needs the

accommodation not only for meeting her present needs but also

claimed that her two married sons, who are residing in separate

accommodations also desire to live with her in her old age. The

learned ARC has examined the bonafide need of the respondent even

by ignoring the need of the respondent in respect of her two sons not

presently residing with her, and on the basis of the need made out

and founded upon the family members in fact residing in the portion

in her possession. No dispute with regard to the ownership and

purpose of letting was raised by three of the tenants and only one

tenant raised a dispute with regard to the purpose of letting by

contending that the purpose of letting was residential-cum-

commercial. The petitioner is not the tenant, who had raised the

dispute about the purpose of letting being residential.

3.

The requirement of the respondent/landlord and the

C.M.(M) No.188/2008

Page 2 of 7

2008:DHC:441

family was pleaded on the basis that she along with her husband, her

two married sons, five granddaughters aged 22 years, 20 years, 18

years, 17 years & 15 years and three grandsons aged 20 years, 18

years & 14 years were residing with her. The bonafide need of the

respondent and her family has been discussed in paras 6 to 10 of the

impugned order, which read as follows: -

“6. Now we come to the bonafide requirement

of the petitioner regarding qua size of her

family. Although the respondent cannot take

the plea that two sons, residing separately,

are not dependent upon the petitioner for

residence or that they cannot wish to live with

their old age mother, yet for the sake of

arguments even if it is considered that these

two sons namely Vijesh Sharma and Rakesh

Sharma have independent accommodation

with them let's consider the size of the family

of the petitioner who is residing at the suit

property with her. The family of the petitioner

consists of three couples i.e. petitioner and

her husban