Indo Devi And Ors. vs Panna Lal And Ors.
1990 Latest Caselaw 87 Del

JUDGMENT

N.N. Goswamy, J.

(1) This petition under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', is directed against the eviction order dated August 7, 1984 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

(2) The respondent landlord had instituted an eviction petition under Section 14(i)(1) read with Section 25B of the Act as far back as in 1976. in paragraph 18(a)(1) of the petition it was alleged :- "THAT the premises were let to the respondent for residential purpose and the same are required by the petitioner as residence for himself and the members of the family dependent on him. The petitioner is the owner of the premises in dispute and that he has no other reasonably/suitable accommodation. The family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife, two married sons, one son aged about 24 years, two daughters-in-law, one grand daughter, two domestic servants. The said whole family of the petitioner is a Joint Hindu Family and the petitioner is Karta of the same and the whole family is living jointly since the very beginning. The petitioner and his family members have a high status in the society and the petitioner and his sons are assessed for purposes of income tax. The friends and relatives of title petitioner and his family members used to visit the petitioner and his family members and sometimes they stay for days together. The petitioner and his family members have a car and scooters..... The petitioner and his family members are in occupation of different portions of the property bearing Municipal No. 18, Sri Ram Road, Civil Lines, Delhi more specifically shown in green, colour in the plan attached for residential purposes. This accommodation is not sufficient fur the petitioner and his family inembers. The petitioner and his wife have no bed room, living room, no drawing-cum-dressing room and have no separate kitchen as they arc purely vegetarian. The eldest son of the petitioner namely, Pramod Gupta has a family of himself, his wife and a daughter and his Family has no living room, and have no kitchen as they are non-vegetarian. The third son of the petitioner namely Arun Gupta is of marriageable age and several parties are ready for his engagement and marriage as early as possible but due to paucity of accommodation, the petitioner has not been able to finalise his engagement and marriage. This son of the petitioner requires one bed room, one living room and a drawing cum dressing room''.

(3) The petition was contested and in the written statement it was pleaded that the petition for partial eviction was not competent. It was further pleaded that the petitioner was in occupation of 17 rooms, one store, two kitchens and four combined W.Cs. and baths, one motor garage, three tin sheds, one urinal and one kolki on the ground floor of property No. 18, Sri Ram Road and is also in possession of three big rooms, one kitchen, one combined W.C. one covered verandah and one big balcony on the first floor of property No. 18, Sri Ram Road, New Delhi. The said accommodation was sufficient for the petitioner and as such he had not bona fide require any Further accommodation.

(4) The learned Additional Rent Controller found that the plea of partial eviction was not maintainable inasmuch as the petition was for the entire premises in possession of the tenant. On the question of sufficiency of accommodation, the learned Additional Rent Controller relied upon the plan Ext. A/1 and came to the conclusion that there were in all three bed rooms besides the drawing-cum-dining room and puja room with the landlord. The Controller was of the opinion that the landlord needed atleast four bed rooms because there were three couples and a unmarried son who was likely to get married.

(5) The other requirements pleaded by the landlord were negatived.

(6) On the aforesaid findings the eviction order was passed. The tenant has come up to this Court in this revision petition. During the pendency of the revision petition an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed in this Court by the petitioner tenant for taking into consideration certain later developments. It was also pointed out at the hearing that the learned Additional Rent Controller had not taken into consideration certain rooms which were stated to be in dilapidated condition and servant quarters. On consideration of the entire matter I had remanded the case back to the Additional Rent Controller with the directions that he will take into consideration the later developments as pointed out and would also assess the damage to the rooms and record the findings as to whether the rooms marked X-10,X-11, X-14.X-15 and X-17 could be used as the living rooms by the landlord.

(7) As a consequence of the remand order the impugned order has been passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller. Taking into consideration the subsequent developments which are the increase in the family members of the landlord the Rent Controller has recorded definite finding that the landlords need atleast seven bed rooms for the members of the family in addition to one drawing-cum-dining room. I ie has also recording the finding that the rooms X-14, and X-15 are being used as servant quarters and X-17 was being used as store. The other rooms X-10 and X-14 were in a dilapidated condition and required heavy expenses for putting them to use. On looking into the plan carefully the Additional Rent Controller recorded the finding that even if one office room as shown by the landlord and the Puja room could also be used as living room, the landlord has got in all five rooms in addition to the drawing-cum-dining room, as such his requirement is bona fide.

(8) It is not disputed that at present the members of the landlord's family are the landlord and his wife, three married sons, four grand children from the first married son and two grand children from each of the other two sons. Thus, the total number of grand children is eight. The immediate requirement according to me would be one room for each, of the couples, that is, four rooms, two rooms for the children of the son having four children and one room each for the other two married sons having two children each. Thus, the immediate requirement would be eight living room besides a drawing-cum-dining, even if I hold that the landlord is entitled to only one drawing-cum-dining room though all the four couples are working and are in fairly affluent circumstances.

(9) I have carefully looked into the plan Ext. A/1 which stands admitted by the tenant. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that one of the bed rooms on the first floor is surrounded by open terrace and a covered verandah. According to the learned counsel the bed room is big enough to be divided into two and the verandah can also be used as a living room. According to him by this process two more bed rooms would be added. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention of the learned counsel that for the convenience of the tenant the landlord should divide one room and should also make a verandah into a living room. Even assuming for the sake of argument this is also done, still the accommodation remains short by one room. The learned counsel could not point out any other suitable accommodation from the plan which can be used as a living room by the landlord. As regards the rooms X-10 to X-17 the same are in a separate block which essentially is a servant quarters block. The landlord cannot be expected to live in those servant quarters or to put the children in those servant quarters. The last contention of the learned counsel for the tenants is that the room which is being used by the respondent , an office can be used as a living room. The respondent had claimed two rooms for his office purpose. It was not disputed that the respondent was carrying on business from his residence and had no independent office. All the same the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that one room did contain the office furniture and the files etc., which had to be treated as an office room while the other could be used as a living room. I find no reason to interfere with this finding of the Additional Rent Controller.

(10) After giving my careful consideration I am of the opinion that at best the landlord has only five living rooms which is the finding recorded by the Additional Rent Controller and his immediate requirement is that of eight rooms and as such the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. There was no challenge to the other findings regarding owner .hip and letting purpose by the petitioner tenant.

(11) For the reasons recorded above I find no merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 300.00 .