* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% RC.REV.1/2004
+ Date of Decision: 12th May, 2011
# ISHWARI DEVI ...Petitioner
! Through: Mr.Sunil Malhotra, Advocate
Versus
$ BATA SHOE COMPANY PVT. LTD. & ANR.
....Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?(No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?(No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?(No)
ORDER
P.K.BHASIN,J
This petition under section 25- B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 is against the order dated 16thJuly 2003 passed by the
Additional Rent Controller whereby the eviction petition filed by the
petitioner – landlady under Section 14-D of the said Act has been
dismissed after trial.
RC. REV. 1/2004 Page 1 of 7
2. The petitioner claimed to be the owner of property bearing no.
319/5/5A, (main road), Gandhi Nagar, Delhi having purchased the
same vide sale deed dated 25thMarch 1969. One big room on the
ground floor(‘the tenanted premises’) portion of the said house was
given on rent to respondent no.1 Bata Shoe Company Ltd., name of
which Company later on after becoming a Private Limited Company
came to be changed to Bata India Ltd., which had also been separately
impleaded as respondent no. 2 in her eviction petition by the
petitioner – landlady. The tenanted premises were let out in the year
1972 at a monthly rent of Rs 1275/- for commercial user. Fifteen years
thereafter the petitioner filed an eviction case against the respondents
under Section 14-D of the Rent Act alleging that her husband had died
in the year 1996 and she being a widow required the tenanted
premises for her own residence. In the eviction petition she claimed
that she had two sons and six married daughters, five of whom lived in
Delhi and they frequently come to her house. The elder son of the
petitioner was married and he along with his family comprising of his
wife and two children were living with the petitioner. The second son
of the petitioner was also of marriageable age(when the eviction
petition was filed). Regarding the accommodation in her possession the
petitioner had pleaded that she was having three rooms, one kitchen,
RC. REV. 1/2004 Page 2 of 7
one small store room and one small bathroom on the ground floor and
two rooms on the first floor along with one kitchen and one toilet.
3. The respondents in their written statement pleaded that the name
of the tenant Company initially was Bata Shoe Company Ltd. and later
on it became a Private Limited Company and then in the year 1973 its
name came to be changed to Bata India Limited(respondent no.2
herein). On merits, it was pleaded, inter alia, that the eviction petition
was vexatious and did not disclose any cause of action as the tenanted
premises were let out for commercial purpose and that the petitioner in
any case already had sufficient accommodation available for herself
and her family members who in any case were not dependant on her.
It was further pleaded that the tenant Company had financed a sum of
Rs.50,000/- in the year 1972 itself for the construction of the tenanted
premises as per its requirement for being used for commercial purposes
and that the same could not be used for residential purposes since it did
not have any kitchen bathroom and latrine.
4. After granting leave to contest to the respondents the learned
Rent Controller put the case for trial. The petitioner-landlady examined
herself in support of her case and also examined her son Ashok and
from the side of the tenant Company one of its officials was examined
as its sole witness.
RC. REV. 1/2004 Page 3 of 7
5. The learned Additional Rent Controller has after evaluating the
evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the eviction petition. The
conclusion of the trial Court is contained in the concluding para no.12
of the impugned order which is re-produced below:-
“12. In the present petition, admittedly, premises was let out
for commercial purposes as a shop and admittedly shop is being
run from the tenanted premises till date. Admittedly there is no
basic amenity in the premises in dispute. Admittedly, petr. has five
rooms in her possession i.e. three on the ground floor and two on
the first floor along with verandah, open courtyard, store, toilet,
bathroom and two kitchens. The constitution of the family of the
petr., is not disputed. The law with regard to commercial premises
u/s 14-D of the DRC Act has already been settled. It is true that
even commercial premises can be brought within the purview u/s
14-D of the DRC Act, the only rider is as to whether the premises
can be used for residential purposes or not. In the present petition,
admittedly there is no basic amenity in the entire tenanted
premises. It has been admitted by the petitioner that premises was
constructed as commercial on the advance given by the
respondent. The shop is still being run from the premises in
dispute. In view of the same additional requirement of the
petitioner has to be seen and evaluated with caution and care.
Petitioner has one unmarried son and one married son along with
six married daughters. Admittedly, all the six married daughters
are living in their matrimonial homes. They visits at the residence
of petitioner is not in dispute hence, from the conservative
estimate petitioner requires at least one room for herself, one for
unmarried son , one for her married son and his wife , one for
grandchildren who are aged six and eleven years and one room for
guests. Hence, at the most she requires five rooms for her bona
fide requirement. It is true that keeping in view her status she may
require one additional room for other purposes like pooja or
accommodating the guests but the same has to be considered with
caution viz-a-viz the commercial nature of the tenanted premises.
Any additional accommodation can be considered only if petr. is
highly scarcity of the accommodation. Any accommodation leading
to her luxury has to be seen with caution and care. Her desire to
seek eviction of the commercial premises without any basic
amenity is not reasonable keeping in view the accommodation
available to her. There is specific law with regard to the speedy
eviction of the tenanted premises for widows. This is a social
legislation and intention of the legislation is not to make business
of the same. It is true that even commercial premises can beRC. REV. 1/2004 Page 4 of 7
brought within the purview u/s 14-D of DRC Act in fact need of the
residential accommodation with the widow. Each and every case
has to be examined in the facts and circumstances of the case. In
the present petition, I am of the view that the petitioner has failed
to prove her bona fide requirement seeking eviction of the
commercial tenanted premises. Keeping in view the possession of
residential accommodation with the petitioner, I am of the view
that the additional requirement of the petitioner cannot be allowed
to be met through commercial tenanted premises available with the
respondent. Hence I find no merit in the petition, the same is
hereby dismissed.”
6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-landlady has invoked the
revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Notice of the petition was served
upon the respondents and they had entered appearance also and the
petition was admitted for hearing. However, when this petition was
taken up for final hearing on 28th April, 2011 and 29th April, 2011 none
had appeared for the respondents but matter was not heard on those
two dates as adjournment was requested on behalf of the petitioner.
Then on 2nd May, 2011 the matter was taken up for hearing and on that
date also nobody appeared for the respondents. Counsel for the
petitioner was however present and so he argued the matter.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the trial Court’s record which had been
requisitioned. I have also gone through the reply to this petition which
had been filed by the respondents.
RC. REV. 1/2004 Page 5 of 7
8. From the impugned order and particularly the observations
already extracted therefrom it is clear that the learned Rent Controller
had virtually accepted the landlady’s case but still denied her the relief
of eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenanted shop did not
have any amenities like kitchen, bath etc. which are required to be
there for any premises to be used for residential purpose. This
reasoning, in my view, was not sound enough to reject the eviction
petition of the petitioner-landlady. The learned Rent Controller lost
sight of the fact that the tenanted shop was a part of the main
residential house on the ground floor which had all the necessary
facilities of a kitchen and bathroom and in case the tenanted shop is
vacated by the tenant the same would once again become a part of the
original residential Unit on the ground floor. This reason, thus, given
by the learned trial Court for declining the relief to the landlady is not
tenable at all.
9. The learned trial Court itself had also come to the conclusion
that the petitioner requires one room for herself, one room for married
son, one room for her grand-children, one room for unmarried son and
one room for guests. Though not specifically stated but the reference to
the requirement of one room for guests here must be to the unmarried
daughters of the petitioner-landlady. That takes care of five rooms
RC. REV. 1/2004 Page 6 of 7
already with the landlady. The learned trial Court has further
recognised the requirement of one room for pooja also. And the
respondents in their written statement had also pleaded that one room
could be required by their landlady for being used as a drawing-cum-
dining room. Still, the trial Court has refused to pass eviction order
against the respondents. In my view, it is a fit case where the
requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlady was bona fide
and the finding of the learned trial Court that it was not bona fide is not
sustainable at all.
10. This revision petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned
order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissing the
petitioner’s eviction petition is set aside and eviction of the
respondents from the tenanted shop is hereby ordered. The
respondents are, however, granted three months’ time to vacate the
shop.
P.K. BHASIN,J
May 12 , 2011
sh
RC. REV. 1/2004 Page 7 of 7