Waryam Kaur vs K.K. Gandhi
1987 Latest Caselaw 260 Del

JUDGMENT

Mahinder Narain, J.

(1) This revision is directed against an order of Shri V.B. Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dated 28/05/1982,whereby he has, after trial, dismissed the application of the petitioner Smt.Waryam Kaur, the owner of the premises, under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, for eviction of the respondent.

(2) The petition being under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent ControlAct, leave had to be sought by the tenant before he could defend. This leave was granted, where after trial was held, and evidence of the parties recorded.

(3) Among the members of the family of the petitioner/landlady who were examined, were Waryam Kaur, petitioner, as A.W.1, Amarpal Singh son of the petitioner as A.W.4, Gurbachan Singh, husband of the petitioner as A.W.6, Harcharan Singh, brother-in-law of the petitioner as A.W.8. From their evidence, as accepted by the Additional Rent Controller, it is clear that the members of the family of petitioner are: (1) the petitioner, (2) GurbachanSingh, her husband, (3) Amarpal Singh, her son, (4) Ms. Amarpal Singh, (5)Jaspreet Kaur, daughter of Amarpal Singh, (6) Ish Puneet Singh, son of Amarpal Singh, (7) Harpal Singh, son of the petitioner, (8) Ms. Harpal Singh,(9) Harneet Singh, son of Harpal Singh, (10) Gurcharan Kaur, widow of Harcharan Singh, and (II) Baneet Kaur, daughter of Harcharan Singh. These are 11 members of the family which are alive today. This fact is not disputed by the respondents. As far Gurbachan Singh is concerned, he died during dependency of the proceedings. There was addition to the family of the petitioner by the birth of Harsheen Kaur to Harpal Singh, who is now 1" year of age.

(4) Because of the fact proved in this case, I need not take into account the death of Guabachan Singh, and the birth of Harsheen Kaur.

(5) The case of the respondents is that Amarpal Singh, who is examined as A.W.4, lives in Holland, and effectively there were only 10 members of the family of the petitioner. Thus 10 members of the family, it is said, can conveniently live in three bed-rooms on the ground floor which are available with them, and the 4th room, assuming it to be a room available for living purpose on the terrace of the premises.

(6) It is the case of the respondents that even the petitioner did not live in Delhi at the relevant time. The case of the respondents further is that the petitioner lived at Mussoorie with her husband, where he worked in Savoy Hotel.

(7) I have to take judicial cognizance of the fact that Savoy Hotel is located in Mussoorie which essentially is a resort town for the summer months.It is difficult for me to accept that both the husband and wife lived at Mussoorie throughout the year, and for this reason I am inclined to accept the version of the petitioner that she lived at Delhi, that her husband lived at Mussoorie for a while, and used to attend to his work there, but used to come to Delhi and live in the house.

(8) Keeping into account the number of family members of the petitioner,it is to be found that one room is required by the petitioner and the husband another room is required for the living accommodation of Amarpal Singh and his offsprings, yet another room will be required by Harpal Singh, his wife and his offsprings, and yet another room will be required by the petitioner'ssister-in-law and her daughter Baneet Kaur who have been living with the petitioner. This makes the need for four bed-rooms. There are only three bed-rooms admittedly on the ground floor where the family lives. Even in three bed-rooms on the ground floor, the family will have to live some what uncomfortably with three or four persons in two of the room. In my view, it is the landlady who will know how much accommodation and what kind of accommodation is bona fide required for her. The landlady can go with that requirement to the Additional Rent Controller, who determines whether accommodation which is alleged to be bona fide required, is bona fid ereasonable requirement of the petitioner.

(9) It is the case of the petitioner that the original tenant Shri K.K. Gandhi who was the tenant of the first floor of the premises, died. This was in December, 1982. It is further the case of the petitioner that the widow of Shri K.K. Gandhi stayed in the premises till 1985 when she left Delhi in June, 1985. Thereafter she had gone to America to visit her daughters.According to the respondents, she had to keep on staying in America as number of unfortunate incidents happened, and she could not come back to Delhi till 23/03/1987. It is not disputed by either of the parties that K.K. Gandhi had five daughters, four of whom are married and one unmarried. One daughter is in Ranchi and the others are in America. The youngest one, unmarried, is daughter only temporarily in America.

(10) It is not disputed, and it is a settled law that it is for the landlord to determine how much accommodation is required by him/her that the Rent Controller and this Court has to see, is whether the requirement of the landlord is reasonable and bonafide.

(11) In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that it would not reasonable to expect 10 or 11 members of the family, when they there arc grown-up children amongst them, to live only in three hed-rooms. It is open to the landlord to look for his comforts with respect to the house that belongs to him and insist that he will not sacrifice his comforts and live a crowded life in his own house when he can have slightly more comfort. This is the effect of the observation of this Court in the case Krishan Kumar v. Vimla Sehgal,1976 Rent Control Reporter 249.

(12) This Court in the case Bulaki Das v. Suraj Bhan, , has expressed the view that a "barsati" is designed and is meant for use for sleeping etc. in summer/rainy weather. In my view, it is not open to the tenant to insist that the landlord or the members of his family must live and use the "barsati" as a living room/bed-room, although it may not be comfortable to do so owing to lack of other facilities which exist in a normal house."Barsatis" are usually built upon terraces, with no other facilities, which usually exist in the other floors of the house.

(13) In the instant case, it is asserted by Mr. R.K. Makhija that "barsati" is not capable of being used as a living room by the members of the family of the landlady as it only has an open toilet facility, and is, therefore, unsuitable as living space.

(14) Counsel for the respondent has cited the case (Prem Nath v. 0m Parkash), regarding the accountability of a "barsati" as a room. That case related to a property in Aryapura,Subzi Mandi. I do not think that the observations with respect to people living in Aryapura can be utilised and applied to people living in East PatelNagar, which is much superior residential area compared to Aryapura of SubziMandi.

(15) It is the case of the respondents that Amarpal Singh lives in Holland.It is also his case that wife of Amarpal Singh is permanently residing inHolland. He does not dispute that Amarpal Singh's children are studying inDelhi. This position which is taken up by the respondents, is disputed by Mr.R.K. Makhija, who says that it is only Amarpal Singh who is living in Holland,and his children are studying in Delhi. His wife visits him occasionally, but she stays in Delhi and looks after the children. I am more inclined to believe the version of the landlady that it is only Amarpal Singh who is presently living in Holland, that his wife who looks after the grown-up children, is living inDelhi.

(16) It is not disputed by the respondents that Harcharan Singh was living in the same premises, that he died during the pendency of the proceedings that his wife and grown-up daughters are living in the premises.

(17) The petitioner asserts that she has one married daughter who stays outside Delhi, but visits the petitioner.

(18) It is not unreasonable, in the facts and circumstances of the case,that the petitioners family should have at least one room available which should be usable as a guest-room when the guests visit the petitioner, whether the guest is married daughter or her family, or anybody else.

(19) In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the Additional Rent Controller has erred in considering that three bed-rooms on the ground floor and one 'barsati' on the terrace are sufficient for the petitioner and members of the petitioner's family.

(20) It appears to me that the requirement of the petitioner, as stated in the petition of the entire first floor of the premises bearing No. 26/16, East Patel Nagar, is bona fide, and she is entitled to order in her favor. In my view she has proved her case, and thus she is entitled to succeed in her petition.

(21) Accordingly the order of the Additional Rent Controller is set aside,and the petition is allowed. An order of eviction is passed against the respondents. The respondents will be entitled to the statutory period of six months for vacating the premises.

(22) In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.