Judgment:
S.B. Wad, J.
(1) This is a petition filed by the landlady Smt. Sushila Bhatia against the order of the learned Rent Controller dismissing her application for evection of the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 20(B) (Section 25(B) Sic) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
(2) The suit premises consists of three rooms, store, bathroom, kitchen court yard on the first floor of property No. J-2/15 Rajouri Garde, New Delhi. these premises were let to out the respondent on 1st August, 1980 on the monthly rental of Rs. 850.00 . The petition for eviction was filed in 1981.
(3) In her eviction petition the landlady had contended that she had been residing with her married son at Gopinath Bazar where residential accommodation is of one room. The married son had a son and another one was expected. she claimed that the one room at Gopinath Bazar was insufficient for her need for the need of her family. She had contended that her relations with the daughter-in-law had become strained and, thereforee, she was in need of the separate accommodation. She had two married daughters and they also cannot be accommodated in one room at Gopinath. Bazar, when they visit and stay with the landlady.
(4) The tenant contested the eviction petition inter- alias on the ground that the landlady was staying at Gopinath Bazar for more than 43 years and she was filing the petition as the tenant bad refused to enter into an agreement for increasing the rent by Rs. 100.00 every year. He had further submitted that the accommodation at Gopinath Bazar consisted of four rooms.
(5) After recording the evidence of both th(r) parties it was clear that the accommodation at Gopinath Bazar consisted of one shop, one residential room, a court yard and verandah and not four rooms. By the time the eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller some farther developments had taken place. The relations of the landlady with her daughter-in-law bad become so bitter that she was required to leave the house at Gopi Nath Bazar and to hire one room in the same locality. The room had no kitchen. The landlady had further become old and needed the assistance of the daughters but hey could not stay with her as the accommodation was only of one room.
(6) The learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application for eviction mainly on two grounds. He held that the son of the landlady was married in 1978 and on her own evidence the relations with the daughter- in-law started constraining few months thereafter. The learned Additional Rent Controller has further held that if the relations had really started becoming sore in 1978 itself how is it that the landlady let out th(r) said premises to the respondent in August, 1980. The eviction petition was filed immediately after expiry of one year of the creation of tenancy and this circumstance was also held against the landlady. Learned Additional Rent Controller also held that if the landlady was staying at Gopinath Bazar for 40 years why could she not continue at the same place From these circumstances, he concluded. that the landlady bad failed to establish that her need was genuine and that the application was .made bonafide. He, thereforee, dismissed the eviction. petition.
(7) After hearing th(r) counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment I find that appreciation of evidence and the reasoning of the learned Additional Rent Controller is erroneous. It is true that the landlady was staying in the room at Gopinath Bazar for 40 years. Most of the period was when her husband was alive. She was staying with her two daughters and the son. Thereafter, the two daughters and tb(r) son got married. By the time the petition was filed the married son bad alr(r)ady one son and another was expected. There is a qualitative difference in the relationship of the family where the mothers and un-married daughters and unmarried son are staying, from the position where the son gets married and an outside girl comes in the family. In is not seriously challenged that the relationship between, the landlady and the daughter-in-law had become constrained. Even if the relations become constrained the family docs not immediately break and particularly where the widowed lady is staying with the only son. It naturally takes some more time with the efforts are made to patch up the relations. When the relations become so sore that it is impossible for the mother-in- law and daughter-in-law to stay together, there is parting ways. This is the reason why in 1980 the landlady let out the suit premises immediately after the marriage. She could not have expected that the relations would become that bad that it would be impossible for her to stay under the same roof at Gopinath Bazar. The subsequent fact that the old widow was required to leave the house and hire another accommodation of one room clearly establishes the fact that although she was staying at Gopi Nath Bazar for 40 years it was no more possible for her to stay in the same accommodation with her daughter- in-law. Even otherwise, the residential accommodation at Gopinath Bazar is only one room, the other room being the shop. There are two open spaces of court-yard and the verandah. The room which she has now hired is only one room without a kitchen. It cannot be said that the said accommodation is sufficient for the landlady for herself and for the daughters who would come and stay with her from time to time as she has become quite old. Her hardship can be contrasted with that of the tenant who is enjoying the accommodation of three rooms, kitchen, store, bath room and a court-yard. All the facts established by the evidence prove that the need of the landlady is genuine and the application made by her for eviction is bonafide. The circumstances held against her by the Additional Rent Controller do not suggest any adverse conclusion against the landlady in regard to the genuineness of her needs.
(8) For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 9th August, 1988 is set-aside and a decree for eviction is passed in favor of the petitioner/landlady under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 23(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The respondent-tenant shall vacate the premises on or before the completion of six months from today and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the landlady. He will not alienate, transfer or assign the suit premises or induct a sub tenant during the said period of six months. The petition is allowed with costs.