PUSHKAR SINGH versus ANSUIYA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 22-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PUSHKAR SINGH 
V. 
ANSUIYA 
AUGUST 22, 2006 
B 
[ASHOK BHAN AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
• 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Delhi Rent Control Act; Section 14(/)(e): Eviction Petition-Bona fide 
C requirements-Availability of alternative accommodation in the name of wife 
of the landlord-Suitability for the purpose of residence-Held: Since the 
tenant herself could not consider the alternative accommodation suitable for 
the purpose of residence, eviction petition cannot be rejected only on the 
ground of availability of the alternative accommodation. 
D 
The appellant-landlord filed an eviction petition against his tenant, the 
respondent, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for vacating 
the premises on the ground of bonafide requirement for his family. The 
Additional Rent Controller allowed the petition holding that there is bona 
fide need of the appellant and his family members; and that the appellant cannot 
E be compelled to occupy the property belonging to his wife. 
F 
Aggrieved, the tenant filed a Revision Petition, which was allowed by 
the High Court holding that since residential accommodation in the name of 
the wife of the landlord was available, it cannot be said that the Iand!or_d's 
need was bonafide. Hence the present appeal. 
The appellant-landlord contended that the alternative accommodation in 
the name of his wife as available was wholly unsuitable and he needed the 
premises in question for bonafide requirement of himself and his family; and 
that he has \lffered the premises available alternatively to the respondent-
G tenant on rent, but the respondent did not accept the offer. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Since the tenant herself believes that the alternative 
accommodation is not suitable for residence purpose, the eviction petition 
196 
... 
PUSHKAR SINGH v. ANSUIY A [MARKANDEY KA nu . .I.] 
197 
cannot be rejected only on the ground of availability of alternative A 
accommodation in the name of the wife of the landlord. Hence, the impugned 
judgment and order of the Single Judge of the High Court is set aside and 
the order of eviction of the Additional Rent Controller is restored. 1199-BI 
M.L. Prabhakar v. Rajiv Singal, 120011 2 SCC 355, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3582 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.7.2003 of the High Court of Delhi 
at New Delhi in Civil Misc. (Main) No. 151/2002. 
Tatini Basu and Sudhir Nandrajog for the Appellant. 
Satish Chand Gupta, Om Prakash and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of 
B 
c 
D 
the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated 7.7.2003 by which the 
Civil Miscellaneous (Main) Petition No. 151 of 2002 of the respondent was E 
allowed and the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 19th October, 
200 l directing eviction of the tenant from the premises bearing flat No. 215-
A, Type-B, Ground Floor, opposite GTB Hospital, Nand Nagari, Delhi under 
Section 14( I)( e) of the Act was set aside. 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
The appellant filed a petition under Section 14(! )( e) of the Delhi Rent 
Control Act against his tenant Ansuiya, the respondent herein. The flat in 
question comprises of two rooms, bathroom, kicthen, latrine and courtyard 
which the appellant had let out to the respondent in the year 1990. 
In his petition under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi 
Rent Control Act, the appellant contended that his family comprises of himself, 
his wife, two sons, thr~e daughters who are dependent upon him for the 
purposes of residence. He further stated that his elder son got married on 
F 
G 
21. 7 .1998 and that he required one room for himself and his wife, one room H 
for his son and his family, one drawing ro'om and one study room, one 
198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A worship room and one guest room. The appellant further stated that his 
daughter Archna is employed and his second daughter completed BAMS and 
the third daughter is a student of B.Sc and that his married son and daughter-
in-law are doing graduation and the younger son is a student of Physiotherapy. 
He further stated that the accommodation presently available with him is not 
B sufficient for the purposes of residence and as such requires the flat in 
question, under the tenancy of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.