V.K. BHANDARI V. SHEIKH MOHD. YAHYA 158 (2009) DLT 124
FACTS
Learned counsel for petitioner-tenant contends that respondents-landlords have not disclosed the alternative accommodation available to them in Delhi. He states that there is no averment in the eviction petition that other family members of respondents did not possess or own any other reasonable suitable residential accommodation. He further contends that though respondents-landlords have been in possession of first and second floors of tenanted premises comprising of four rooms, respondents had not occupied the said floors for the last fifty years. Therefore, according to him, respondents-landlords’ requirement was not bona fide and respondents-landlords’ intent was only to sell the property at a high price.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This petition has been filed under Section 25-B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking to set aside judgment, wherein Additional Rent Controller after having granted leave to defend to petitioner-tenant has allowed respondents-landlords’ eviction petition.
JUDGEMENT
In the eviction petition, respondents-landlords have categorically stated, “that the first floor of the Suit property consist of 4 small rooms. The second floor has 2 small rooms and does not have bathroom or kitchen. This accommodation is insufficient for the petitioners (respondents-landlords herein) and their family members who are dependent on them for residence and the petitioners have no other suitable residential accommodation in Delhi except the suit property.” It cannot be said that the said accommodation is sufficient alternative accommodation.
Petitioner-tenant had been granted leave to defend and he had an opportunity not only to file written statement but also to lead evidence and cross-examine the respondents-landlords. If the petitioner-tenant had some information that respondents-landlords or any of their dependant family members possessed or owned some other alternative residential property which was available to them, he should have either cross-examined respondents-landlords with regard to specific alternative accommodation available or he should have filed substantial evidence. But he failed to do so
As far as petitioner’s apprehension that respondents-landlords have only filed an eviction petition with a view to get the tenanted premises evicted so that they can sell the same, this apprehension is baseless as firstly no evidence to this effect has either been filed or led by petitioner-tenant. Moreover, Section 19 of DRC Act specifically takes care of this apprehension inasmuch as it provides that landlords after getting the premises evicted under Section 14 of said Act cannot sell the same for a period of three years without obtaining permission of Controller.
Consequently, present petition along with application being devoid of merits were dismissed with costs of Rs.11,000/-.