Rakesh Kumar Sehgal vs Nem Chand
1987 Latest Caselaw 367 Del

JUDGMENT

N.N. Goswamy, J.

1. This revision petition by the tenant under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is directed against the eviction order dated 29.2.1984.

2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the allegations that he was residing in a rented accommodation and he wanted to shift to his own house which is the house in question and his requirements were bona fide. He described the members of the family. He also alleged that he was owner of the premises and that the premises were let for residential purpose only.

3. The petition was contested by the tenant mainly on the ground that the premises were let for commercial purpose and the tenant never

resided in the premises and had also been carrying on the commercial activity in the premises. On perusal of the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Addl. Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondent was the owner-landlord of the premises and that the premises were let for residential purpose and were bona fide required by the respondent-landlord. In this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant does not challenge the question of ownership of the respondent. His main contention is that the premises were let for commercial purpose and as such the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) were not attracted. Admittedly, the petitioner is having a shop elsewhere and according to the learned counsel, his 'karindas' carry on the work of manufacturing artificial jewellery for the petitioner in the premises in question. I have looked into the entire record and I do not find any document or any evidence which can possibly be believed to the extent that the petitioner or his 'karindas' are carrying on any commercial activity in the premises. Besides this, the respondent-landlord has placed counter-foils which are immediately prior to the filing of the petition. The counter-foils are Ex. AW1/3 to Ex. AW1/9. These counter-foils indicate that the purpose of letting was residential and some of these counter-foils are signed by the petitioner-tenant while the others are signed by his brother. The original receipts were admittedly in possession of the petitioner-tenant and the same have been withheld for reasons best known to the petitioner. In these circumstances, an adverse inference has to be drawn to the effect to the rent receipts issued to the petitioner would necessarily mention the purpose of letting to be residential. Merely because the petitioner is not residing in the premises does not mean that the premises are not being used for residence because admittedly the 'karindas' of the petitioner are residing in the premises whether they are doing any work or not is immaterial. In the circumstances, the finding regarding the purpose of letting has to be affirmed, and I accordingly do so.

4. Now the last requirement of Section 14(1)(e) is regarding the alternative accommodation available with the respondent which the respondent has to show is not sufficient. In the petition as also in the evidence, the respondent has failed to disclose the extent of accommodation available with the respondent in the rented premises. The respondent was in the rented premises even when the premises in question were let to the petitioner. In these circumstances, it was incumbent on the respondent to allege and prove that the accommodation in the rented premises is insufficient. The question of proof would arise after allegation in the petition and I find that even the allegation is missing. The learned Addl. Rent Controller has merely observed that the respondent wants to come in his own house and he is entitled to do so. I am afraid, this observation is uncalled for as by now the law is settled that the owner-landlord has to prove that the accommodation in his possession is insufficient and he bona fide requires the premises for which the petition has been filed. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed and the case is sent back to the Addl. Rent Controller, who would give further opportunity to the parties on the question of bona fide requirement of the premises in question. The parties will be at liberty to lead evidence on the question of sufficiency or insufficiency of accommodation available with the respondent-landlord. The parties are directed to appear before the Addl. Rent Controller on 22.9.1987. The petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.