JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 13.3.2002 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E-74/2001 whereby the learned Controller on a petition by the respondent herein under Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) has refused permission to leave to defend to the petitioner herein under Section 25B of the Act.
2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Controller are as follows:-
Petitioner in her petition U/s.14D DRC Act submitted inter-alia that ground floor portion of H.No.6, Devi Bhawan comprises of three rooms, kitchen, bath, strone, latrine and open courtyard partly covered with tin shed specifically shown red in the site plan was let out to the respondent without any written agreement on a monthly rent of Rs.233.60 excluding electricity and water charges.
She also submitted that she is the owner of the property in dispute specifically shown red in the site plan and respondent is a tenant in respect of a portion of the ground floor. The premises was let out for residential purposes to the respondent and now she requires for her own residence and for the residence of his family members dependent upon her. She also submitted that she is a widow and premises was let out to the respondent by her late husband Sh. Banwari Lal Gupta.
She also submitted that she is aged about 82 years and residing alone on the first floor and suffering from various ailments and she feels difficulty in climbing the stairs. Now she wants to reside on the ground floor along with her son Sh. Narinder Prakash Gupta and daughter-in-law Pushpa Gupta, who at present are residing at G-18A, Hazrat Nizamuddin(West), which is a tenanted premises and which is owned by Braham Bhatt Shiv Mandir. She also submitted that she is desperate that her son should live with her so that she may be looked after property. Her daughter-in-law is suffering from cancer and heart problem, who has also been operated upon in AIIMS and at present under the treatment of R.M.L. Hospital. Her son and daughter-in-law have agreed to live and reside with the petr. provided there is suitable accommodation.
She also submitted that at present she is in possession of two rooms. Out of which, one is a small room with kitchen, latrine on the 1st floor and one room on the barsati floor. There is no bath room on the 1st floor and no latrine, bath room and kitchen on the barsati floor. All the accommodation available with her is shown green in the site plan. She has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. She also submitted that she and her son also own property No.74, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, which is 1-1/2 furlong from the premises but the same is occupied by tenant. She has also half undivided share in the property No.82/86, Hazrat Nizamuddin, which is commercial and factory is being run, which is far away from the main road. On these grounds, she sought eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises.
An application for leave to defend was filed by the respondent submitting inter-alia that on receipt of notice, a leave was filed in time. He also submitted that he is a tenant in the suit premises for the last 35 years and making payment of rent regularly. He also submitted that petr. is living alone after the death of her husband and no one is living with her to look her after. She has no other income except the rental. She also filed a petition earlier against one Mohd. Aslam, who was paying rent at the rate of Rs.200/- but the petition was withdrawn when the rent has been increased to Rs.800/- and the present petition is also filed for the enhancement of rent.
He also submitted that the adopted son Sh. Narinder Kumar Gupta never lived with the petr. nor he ever visited her. Hence, it is not possible that he and his family would live with her. He also submitted that neither petr. nor her adopted son require the premises in dispute. He also submitted that petr. is claiming that her son is living as a tenant in G-18A, Hazrat Nizamuddin(W) while the litigation is under adjudication in the court of Smt. Preeti Aggarwal, Ld. Civil Judge for the ownership of the said property. Hence, it is wrong that her son is living as a tenant. In fact, he is owner of the property. He also submitted that petr. has taken all false pleas. Hence, he should be given leave to defend and contest the present petition.
Reply to the application for leave to defend was filed by the petitioner who denied all the contentions of the respondent affirming inter-alia that it is wrong that in earlier suit against Mohd. Aslam, it was filed for enhancement of rent and at present, he is paying rent at the rate of Rs.73.21 p.m. and in fact she has filed another suit against the same tenant Mohd. Aslam on the ground of mis-use of property and the same is pending before this Hon’ble Court. She also denied that her son and her daughter-in-law would never reside with her. In fact, her son and daughter-in-law have agreed to live with her and at present her son is living separately due to non-availability of the premises. She also reasserted that she is suffering from various ailments. She also denied any litigation in the court of Mrs. Preeti Aggarwal, Ld. Civil Judge for the ownership of the property. In fact, her son is a tenant in that property Sh. Jai Bhagwan and others have filed a suit for possession for the land underneath and the said property after demolition of the super-structure and that suit is pending. It is not out of place to mention that even UOI through L&DO are also claiming ownership over that property and the proceedings have been filed by UOI against the son of the petitioner.
Rejoinder to the reply was filed by the respondent, who denied all the contentions of the reply of the petitioner and reasserted the plea taken by him in the application for leave to defend.”
3. It is contended by counsel for the tenant, petitioner herein that during the pendency of the proceedings a portion of the premises which was in the tenancy of Hazrat Begum on the ground floor has fallen vacant. In view thereof the requirement of the landlady stands satisfied and, therefore, the permission under Section 25B of the Act should be granted.
4. On the other hand it is contended by counsel for the respondent, landlady that the landlady is 82 years of age, suffering from various ailments, living all by herself, has urgent need of the ground floor premises under the tenancy of the petitioner herein, so that she can move to the ground floor while having her son and daughter-in-law come and stay with her to look after her/take care of her. Counsel further contends that the premises which was under tenancy of Hazara Begum is not suitable accommodation, inasmuch as, it has access from the outer road and is not interconnected. Even otherwise, he submits that this portion was never sought to be vacated on the ground of bona fide requirement since it did not satisfy the requirements of the landlady.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and have given my careful consideration to the judgment under challenge as also the submissions made before me. It is well settled that under Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act the requirements of the widow must be urgently attended to and the proceedings not allowed to protract unless the tenant is able to make out a suitable case which may dis-entitle the widow to seek eviction.
6. In the present case, the landlady’s requirements are for premises on the ground floor, as the first and the barsati floor are causing inconvenience to her, on account of her age and health. The ground floor which consists of three rooms, kitchen, bathroom, store and open courtyard is required by her for her own needs, while the first floor would be required for the family of her son and daughter-in-law who are, at present, residing in a rented accommodation. The argument of the tenant that the premises which was in possession of Hazrat Begum on the ground floor, has fallen vacant should satisfy the needs of the landlady cannot be said to be a valid argument, inasmuch as, even when the landlady filed her petition under Section 14D of the Act she knew and was aware that she could exercise her right, to obtain for herself accommodation needed only once in her life time. In the event, the portion of Hazrat Begum could have satisfied her needs, she would have chosen that, instead of the portion with the present tenant. It is the choice of the landlady and not a directive of the tenant as to which portion is more suitable for consideration under Section 14D of the Act. Even otherwise the landlady has explained her stand, inasmuch as, the ground floor in possession of the present tenant forms a contiguous, composite and harmonious unit with the first floor and the barsati floor, which she can use beneficially for herself and for members of her family whom, she wishes to induct to look after her at this juncture of her life. There is nothing wrong in her chosing one portion to the other.
7. Another argument which was raised by counsel for the tenant, petitioner herein was that the petitioner should be inducted into the portion vacated by Hazrat Begum. This argument, to say the least, deserves outright rejection, for the reason that induction of the present petitioner to the portion that has fallen vacant would entail a new agreement which would necessarily mean a fresh rate of rent, terms and conditions of lease etc. Mere transposing the existing lease to the new premises is not permissible and is beyond the scope of the Rent Control Act. I need hardly burden this judgment with precedent, for there is nothing said herein, that is not already a settled proposition of law.
8. In this view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the order under challenge and affirm the same. C.R.P. 425/2002 is dismissed. CM 922/2002 also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.