G.L. Khanna vs G. Doss
1990 Latest Caselaw 189 Del

JUDGMENT

N.N. Goswamy, J.

(1) The petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, hereinafter called 'the Act', by the owner landlord is directed against the order dated August 12,1987 pasted by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, whereby his petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act was dismissed.

(2) The petitioner filed the eviction petition under Section 14(i)(e) read with 25B of the Act. In paragraph 18(a) of the petition it was pleaded :- "BONAFIDE Requirement : The petitioner is the owner of the property. The premises in suit were let to the respondent for purely residential use. The premises in suit are bona fiddly required by the petitioner for residence of himself and his family members dependant upon the petitioner. The petitioner and his family as no reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The need is bonafide and urgent and as such the petition. The premises was let under Section 21 of the D.R.C. Act as at that time, the petitioner could afford letting for a fixed period. As the petitioner could wait the event of requirement, the petitioner allowed the respondent to continue on in the premises. The petitioner has been now requiring the premises in suit for self residence and residence of the family members of the petitioner and as such made a request to the respondent and also sent notice and as the respondent has failed to vacate, the petitioner files the present petition. The petitioner has only son Shri Ashok Khanna who is an Mba and Chartered Accountant. He is married with Smt. Lalita Khanna who is also MBA. The petitioner had been keeping ill health for sometime past and as such the son and the daughter-in-law have to be with the petitioner. The petitioner is a Cartographic Journalist by profession and attends to this profession from his own house. The son and the daughter-in-law being Management Consultants have also to have their studies. Keeping in view the family, the requirements, the present accommodation with the petitioner is not at all reasonably suitable for residence of the petitioner and his family members. It is due to the paucity of accommodation and non-availability of the additional accommodation that the son of the petitioner is compelled to postpone his residence with the petitioner. The petitioner is advancing in age and it is the desire of the petitioner that the only son with his family resides and lives with the petitioner in his own house. It was actually to that end that initially the premises were let for limited period but as the son of the petitioner had an outside assignment, the petitioner could afford temporary letting which continued. "The wife of the petitioner is also now requiring the attendance by the daughter-in-law and as such there is urgent need of having more accommodation so as to accommodate the son and his family. The petitioner's wife is suffering from cardiac ailment and has already on Pace Maker and is under the treatment in Pant Hospital. The accommodation with the petitioner consists of one bed room and a drawing cum dining room apart from kitchen, latrine and bath. The wife of the petitioner requires an independent room exclusively to herself keeping in view her ailment and necessity of attendance to stay with her. The petitioner thus requires one more bed room for himself which is not available and as such presently the petitioner is compelled to sleep in the drawing room. The petitioner has to have a study which is not possible properly in the accommodation available and for the time being in the same drawing room in a corner the petitioner has kept the study though there uninterrupted study is not possible. The son and the daughter-in-law of the petitioner have no accommodation to live with the petitioner and his wife. The accommodation available is thus too insufficient and the requirement is urgent."

(3) The petition was contested by the respondent-tenant though initially the ownership was challenged but later the challenge was given up and as such there was no dispute regarding the ownership and the Jetting purpose. As regards the bona fide requirements it was pleaded by the respondent that the son of the petitioner never wanted to reside with his parents and as a bachelor he was residing independently. It was further pleaded that he had been transferred to Calcutta and on coming back to Delhi also, he was occupying accommodation at 40, Paschim Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, and had no intention of staying with his parents. It was further pleaded that the petitioner had no bona fide requirement for himself since he has been letting out the first floor from time to time to different tenants.

(4) The Additional Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition and held that the son and daughter-in-law of the petitioner were not dependant on the petitioner either financially or for residence. It was further held that the son and daughter-in-law had never shown any inclination to live with the petitioner. The Additional Rent Controller noticed that even in 1976 when the petitioner had suffered a heart attack, his son did not come to stay with him. The Additional Rent Controller also held that the petitioner did not require the premises for his professional purposes as right from the beginning after his retirement whatsoever professional activities he had, he was carrying on from the accommodation in his possession and had been letting the first floor to various tenants from time to time.

(5) During the pendency of this petition the respondent tenant filed an application for bringing on record certain subsequent events. It was stated in the application that the premises E-40. Pashchim Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi where the son of the petitioner was residing were owned by the son. A portion of those premises was under tenancy. The son of the petitioner had instituted on eviction petition against his tenant on the ground that he wanted his old parents to stay with him in E-40, Pashchim Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and that the said eviction was pending before the Additional Rent Controller. In reply to the application the petitioner admitted that the premises No. E-40, Pashchim Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi were owned by his son as he had inherited the same from his maternal aunt. The filing of the eviction petition by his son was also not disputed. It was further stated that his son had instituted the eviction petition because of the vagaries and uncertainty of law as to the decision in respect of the present petition filed by the petitioner.

(6) Looking at the pleadings of the parties and the circumstances mentioned in the application and the reply thereto I had asked the petitioner to obtain an affidavit from his son to the effect that he would shift to the petitioner's house in case the eviction order is passed against the tenant. The petitioner took adjournment for this purpose but later made a statement that his son was not willing to shift to this premises. In this situation obviously it cannot be said that the requirements of the petitioner are bona fide. The accommodation available with the petitioner on the ground floor, which he is occupying, is sufficient for himself and his wife. In the alternative a suggestion was made that the respondent should be asked to increase the rent and the respondent voluntarily agreed to increase the rent to Rs. 1100.00 per month which the petitioner did not accept as he wanted still higher rent.

(7) After giving my careful consideration to the facts of the case it is clear that the son of the petitioner does not want to shift to the house of the petitioner even if the same is vacated by the tenant. No other requirement has been pleaded in the petition. As an afterthought it was sought to be argued that the petitioner and his wife may need a nurse to look after them in their old age and there was not enough accommodation to accommodate the nurse. I agree with the Additional Rent Controller that this requirement is beyond the pleadings. In these circumstances I am unable to find any error with the impugned order passed by the Additional Rent Controller and dismiss the petition. In the circumstances, however, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.