Chhottey Lal Gupta vs Charan Singh Gupta
1983 Latest Caselaw 229 Del

JUDGMENT

M.L. Jain, J.

(1) The family of the respondent landlord Charan Singh Gupta consists of himself, two sons, their wives, three grand-children of the age of 11,9 and 6 and four married daughters. The accommodation in his possession is three living rooms, one store, one kitchen on the first floor, one barsati on the second floor, two dichotic on 6' height, and abasement store. A shop on the ground floor, one store, one more duchattiare there, but they are being used for tailoring work done by his son and his workmen. There is one garage on the ground floor which is mortgaged with one Sharbati Jain. The landlord filed an eviction application against his tenant Chhottey Lal Gupta. The tenant contended that the landlord is not the owner of the premises. He also contended that the accommodation in possession of the landlord is sufficient for his requirements. The Addl.Controller by his order dated 22-11-1932 directed eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Hence, this revision.

(2) It appears that house No. 8454 was built on two plots 14 and 15.The property built on plot No. 14 was sold to Rama Mala Devi. The landlord's father bequeathed in his favor the property built on plot No.15, Model Basti. The landlord is thus the sole owner of plot No. 15. The learned Additional Controller was of the view that the landlord required four bed rooms, besides one guest room for his daughters and one drawing-cum-dining room. One dutachhatti and one store were already used for business.Barsati and the basement cannot be used as living rooms. He held that his requirement of the disputed premises is genuine. It was brought to my notice that the tenant who is a nephew of the landlord is not living in the disputed premises and as a matter of fact is living with his family in house No. T-326, Ahata Kidara, Delhi, taken in the name of his wife.I appointed a local commissioner and he reported that the disputed premises were locked. There were no articles in the kitchen. There were some articles of furniture in the room, but it was full of webs and dust. The local commissioner also inspected house No. T-326, Ahata Kidara, but the staircase of the house was found locked and the inspection of the premises could not be undertaken. The inevitable conclusion is that the tenant does not at all need the premises in question. He has already shifted to Godmother premises. They have been taken in the name of his wife and his whole family lives there. He has simply locked the premises in dispute,probably because they are on meagre rent. The statutory protection is not meant for such cases. It is not incorrect that for a reasonably comfortable living the accommodation at present with the landlord is notsufficient. According to Shri Shyam Bihari Singh v. Smt. Sushila Devi, and Sarla Mittal v. K.C. Jain, , the landlord is entitled to live comfortably in his own house. Findings of fact arrived at by the Controller even if wrong, cannot be easily interferedwith. The members of the family of landlord cannot certainly be asked to live in dutachattis which are only 6 high which are in fact being used as stores nor can he be asked to satisfy himself with barsati and basement.He is also entitled to have a separate dining and sitting room. There is nothing in the findings of fact arrived at by the Controller below which can be said to be not in accordance with law.

(3) I, therefore, find no force in this revision and dismiss the same with costs.