R.S. Sodhi, J.@mdashThis revision petition seeks to challenge the judgment of the Rent Controller, Delhi (for short the ''''Controller'''') in E-166/98/89, whereby the learned Controller vide his judgment dated 17th December, 1999, has rejected the petition of the petitioner u/s 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
2. The brief facts of this case, as has been noted by the Controller, are as under :
"that the respondent was a tenant in respect of one room, store, kitchen on the ground floor, common bathroom, WC and courtyard under one tenancy and entire second floor under separate tenancy in premises No. UB-20, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. One Kishan Lal Mehta was the owner of the said property and respondent was tenant under him. The petitioner purchased the property from Sh. Kishan Lal Mehta vide a registered Sale Deed dated 1/8/1984. The respondent attorney to the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that the premises was let out to the respondent for residential purposes and had been so used. The petitioner now bona fide required the said premises for her residence and for residence of the family members dependent on her. She had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation available for their residence. The family of the petitioner comprised of herself, her husband, one son named Rakesh Kumar, his wife, daughter and a son; another son Rajesh Kumar who was unmarried and one unmarried daughter Sushma besides two married daughters who were living in Delhi. It is also her case that her husband property No. 35-35A, Central Road, and 26, Central Lane, Jangpura which was one property and the said property was entirely commercial and was rented out totally. It is also her case that her husband owned property No. 49-51, Bhogal Road and 16, Bhogal Lane, which was all one property having different numbers and the entire property comprised of shops and godown which were on rent with the tenants. It is also her case that her husband was a tenant in property No. 92-93, Naya Bans, Delhi having three small rooms, store, one tin shed, open courtyard. The said portion was being used for residential and commercial purpose since 1942 where the petitioner Along with her family was living previously. The petitioner had to shift to Satyawati Colony due to insufficiency of accommodation at Naya Bans and she was a present residing at present residing at Satyawati Colony in a rented accommodation. It is submitted by the petitioner that she had purchased this suit property only with the intention of having her own residence and residence of family members dependent on her. Her desire was to shift to her own accommodation. It is also her case that one big hall with main it, in the front side of the property in dispute, was under the tenancy of her son who was doing business there from even before the purchase of the property by the petitioner.
3) The respondent has contested this petition on the ground that the petitioner was not the owner of the suit property. It is also his case that the petitioner had mislead the court. It is also his case that the petitioner and her husband had more than sufficient accommodation in several properties in Delhi and she had no bona fide need of the suit premises. It is also his case that the premises in question was not let out for residential purposes alone and hence, the petition was maintainable. The petitioner having purchased C-15, Satyawati Colony and raising construction thereon, to be brought on record. Petitioner was residing with her family at C-15, Satyawati Colony and did not require the suit premises bona fide
4) It is also his case that a single petitioner for two different tenancies taken at different times was not maintainable. As it is, it is also his case that the petition was, as it is for partial eviction as he was in possession of one room, store, kitchen and bath and WC and courtyard on the ground floor and two rooms, two verandas kitchen and WC on the second floor. It is also his case that he carried on the business under the name and style of M/s B.D. Beri and Sons in the full knowledge and consent of Sh. Jawala Singh and Sh. Swaran Singh, the previous owners.
5) It is further the case of the respondent that the son of the petitioner, namely, Sh. Rakesh Kumar lives separately with his family in house No. 45-45A, Bhogal, Jangpura and was not dependent on the petitioner on her husband for residence or financially. It is further his case that the petitioner and her husband had more than sufficient accommodation in their possession. The property no.45-45A, at Bhogal, Jangpura was a three storeyed house and was in possession of the petitioner and her husband, particularly used by her first married son. It is also his case that property no.49-51, Bhogal, Jangpura had two residential rooms and other amenities on the back side which were being kept vacant and unoccupied by the petitioner and her husband. The property no.16, Bhogal, Jangpura and 26, Bhogal, Jangpura were also the residential houses for residence of the petitioner."
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that in premises bearing No. C-15, Satyawati Colony, there is a tenant in the first floor and that the accommodation therein is insufficient for herself and members of her family dependent on her for accommodation. The learned Controller while appreciating the evidence on record has returned a finding that the landlady has not been able to prove that there is a tenant in occupation of the first floor of the premises bearing No. C-15, Satyawati Colony. Counsel has drawn my attention to Ex.RW2/P-2, which is a copy of the inspection report of the inspector, who inspected the site and found the first floor to be in occupation of tenant, Naveen Kumar Jain. This report has been exhibited by an official of the corporation, but the inspector has not taken the stand. Even Naveen Kumar Jain has not come into the witness box. There is no lease deed produced, nor even a rent receipt let alone any exhibition of accounts to show the presence of tenant on the first floor. It appears that this is a red herring to enable the petitioner to create a shortage of accommodation in order to have the respondent evicted from the suit premises. The trial court while dealing with the question of fact has returned a finding that the landlady has not been able to prove the existence of a tenant on the first floor and on a reappraisal of the evidence on record, as has already been noted above, I see no reason to differ with that finding. The premises No. C-15, Satyawati Nagar, as constructed by the petitioner and the petitioner is in occupation of this entire premises, which consists of ground floor, mezzanine floor as well as first floor, comprising of three bed rooms, dining room on the ground floor and a similar accommodation the first floor, details whereof have been mentioned in Ex.RW2/1. It cannot be said that the aforesaid accommodation is insufficient and that the requirement of premises for bona fide is made out. In this of the matter, while upholding the impugned Judgment dated 17th December, 1999, CR 418/2000 is dismissed.
