Ujagar Singh Etc. vs Colour Chemical Ltd.
1987 Latest Caselaw 329 Del

JUDGMENT

Goswamy, J.

(1) This revision petition by the owner-landlords is directed against the order dated 24.4.1985 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi whereby their petition for eviction under section 14(l)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed.

(2) The petitioners alleged in paragraph 18(a) of the petition that they were the owner-landlords of the property in question which was let out to respondent-company. According to the petition, the members of the family of the petitioners are the petitioners themselves, their son with his wife and a daughter, the other son with his wife and a daughter. The accommodation available with the petitioners as is clear from the site plan is two bed rooms and a drawing-cum-dining besides the usual amenities of kitchen and baths. Besides this accommodation, there is also one room over the garage which, according to the petitioners, was a servant quarter but is being used for residence of a member of the family.

(3) Initially the respondent filed an application for leave to defend which was refused and an eviction order was passed. That order was challenged in this court and the revision petition of the tenant was allowed and he was granted leave to defend. In the written statement, various pleas were taken with which I am not concerned in this revision petition because all the findings, except the finding on the question of bona fide requirement, have been recorded against the respondent-tenant and those findings have not been challenged.

(4) I am concerned in this revision petition only with the question as to whether the petitioners bonafide require the premises for their use and for use of the other members of the family dependent on them. It is an admitted fact that at the time of filing of the petition, the petitioners were residing in the premises along with their son, his wife and a child. Though in the petition other members of the family have also been named but it is not proved beyond doubt that other members are permanently residing with the petitioners. Thus I am confining the regular family members to be the two petitioners, their son, his wife and their two children because by now admittedly the son has got two children who are school going. It has been admitted by the respondent in his statement that both those children are going to the school and are residing with their mother in the premises in question. The status of the family is that petitioner No. I is a retired Brigadier and the son whose family is also residing with the petitioner is by now Major in the Army.

(5) After filing of the petition, the son of petitioner namely Major Vikramjit Singh was transferred from Delhi and is now posted at a non-family station. As I have already said admittedly his wife and to children are residing with the petitioners. The two children are school going childern. My approach has always been to see if the admitted members of the family can suitably be accommodated in the accommodation available with the petitioners and if the answer is in the negative, the need of' the owner-landlord is necessarily a bona fide need. The present accommodation available with the petitioner is only two bed rooms and dining-cum-drawing room. One room is necessarily required for the petitioners and two rooms are required for the family of the son. The petitioners have their aged parents, another son who is a marine engineer and is normally out of the country and a daughter whose husband is again in the Army. According to the petitioners, these family members have occasionally to be with the petitioners and this fact cannot be disputed. At least one room is required for the visiting members of the family. In any case even for the members of the family who are admittedly residing in the house, the accomodation is insufficient.

(6) The contention of Mr. Sabharwal, learned counsel, for the respondent, is that the needs of the petitioners are not bona fide because from time to time the rent of the premises in dispute was raised and while constructing the first floor and the second floor it was agreed that the first floor will also be let to the respondent-company. It seems to be true but Mr. Sabharwal forgets one thing i.e. that more than 12 years have elapsed since that time. During these 12 years, two sons of the petitioners have got married and have got children. The sons are posted out of Delhi and at a places where ordinarily they cannot take their families with them. The daughter is also got married and her husband is also stated to be posted at a non-family station and she has occasionally to stay with the petitioners. The last increase of rent was somewhere in 1972 or 1973 and that seems to be in the normal course that the company was approached and the company agreed. This cannot be taken against the petitioners.

(7) The learned Addl. Rent Controller observed that the ration card of the wife of Maj. Vikramjit Singh and her children is for the premises where the petitioners are living, but according to the Addl. Rent Controller, in that ration card, the lady was shown to be the head of the family and as such these persons could not be considered to be dependent on the petitioners. With respect I would say that this approach is erroneous inasmuch as it is a ration card issued by the Army which has necessarily to be in the name of the lady when tb,e Army officer himself is posted at a non-family station. The other contention of Mr. Sabharwal is that since the Army is paying rent to the officer, the wife of the son and the children cannot be considered to be dependent on the petitioners. This argument has again to be rejected, for the simple reason that the wife and children of the son were staying with the petitioners even prior to filing of the petition and it is only the rules of the Army which permitted the payment of rent when the officer himself is posted at a non-family station.

(8) For the reasons recorded above, I am clearly of the opinion that the requirements of the petitioners are bona fide. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Addl. Rent Controller is set aside and the eviction petition is allowed. Consequently eviction order is passed against the respondent-company. However, the respondent-company will have six months' time from to-day to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the petitioners. In the circumstances, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.