Mohinder Singh Bindra vs M.R. Jalan
1991 Latest Caselaw 148 Del

JUDGMENT

C.L. Chaudhary, J.

(1) This revision petition under Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act is directed against the judgment dated.29.5.1986 passed by Shri B.B. Chaudhary, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

(2) The petitioner filed a petition for eviction against the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act,The case pleaded by the petitioner was that the petitioner was residing at Jabalpur with his family. The petitioner Along with the members of his family wanted to shift his residence from Jabalpur to Delhi. It was stated that they were living at Jabalpur in a tenanted premises and they had no business involvement left at Jabalpur. The petitioner, M.S. Bindra was a heart-patient and the medical facilities regarding heart-ailment at Jabalpur were not adequate and the petitioner would have much better facilities at Delhi. The petitioner and the members of his family have business involvements in Delhi. Both the sons of the petitioner have been married. One son has two children. The entire house i.e. ground floor and first floor was required for the residence of the petitioner and his family. The respondent is a tenant on the first floor.

(3) The respondent contested. the eviction petition. By judgment dated 29.5.1986 the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition. The Additional Rent Controller returned the finding that the business activities of the petitioner and his firm M/s. Bindra Civil Engineers and Contractors had not come to an end at Madhya Pradesh. Rather it was quite clear that the petitioner and his firm were involved in various contracts in Madhya Pradesh and it will take years together to complete those works.The Additional Rent Controller also returned the finding that there was nothing on the file to draw the conclusion that better medical facilities were not available to the petitioner at Jabalpur, and the petitioner has not led any evidence to show that he ever consulted any Doctor in Delhi. It was also observed that there was no convincing evidence to hold that Shri Bindra and his wife shifted their residence to the ground floor of the property in October,1990. It was also observed that they had no business involvement in/or near Delhi and there was no occasion for Shri Bindra to shift to Delhi. If Mr.Bindra wanted to shift his residence to Delhi for better medical facilities for his heart-ailment, then spacious accommodation was available to him on the gronnd floor of the house which consisted of one drawing-cum-dining, four bed rooms and one study room, kitchen, latrine, bath etc.

(4) The petitioner has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code being C.M.No. 2530/1989 seeking permission to lead additional evidence. It is alleged in the application that most of the contracts held by the petitioner firm in Madhya Pradesh have been completed.It is wholly unnecessary for the petitioner or members of his family to stay at Jabalpur in connection with the business activities. It is stated that by the present application, the petitioner wishes to bring to the notice of the Court various important events which have taken place in last three years since the Judgment by the Trial Court. The petitioner' firm has been awarded a contract at Ghaziabad. That the petitioner has been holding a ration card since 1984itself and separate Lpg connection and had been drawing ration for members of his family. This unfortunately was not brought to the notice of the TrialCourt. The younger son of the petitioner Shri K.S. Bindra has also shifted to Delhi in 1988 and is running a separate kitchen in the said premises and has a separate gas connection and a ration card for .his wife and two sons aged 15years and 12 years who are studying in St. Columba's School, New Delhi,The petitioner and all members of his family have completely shifted to Delhi and none of them is residing at Jabalpur. The accommodation available with them on the ground floor of the house in suit is only four bed rooms and one drawing-cum-dining room. kitchen, bathrooms etc., which is wholly insufficient for the petitioner, his wife. his two sons, their wives and their four children.The petitioner is heart-patient and is under treatment of Dr, P.P. Verma, a Specialist at New Delhi. Along with this application the petitioner has filed numerous documents-such as copy of the ration card, vouchers of Lpg connection, adoption deed, certificates from Dr. P.P. Verma, Bills of Delhi Gymkhana Club, assessment orders, telephone bills etc., showing therein that the petitioner and his family have shifted to Delhi and they are residing on the ground floor of the property in question.

(5) The application is contested on behalf of the respondent. It hasbeen. denied that there has been any change in the circumstances of the petitioner or his family. It has been further denied that the contracts held by the petitioner's firm at Madhya Pradesh have been completed. The petitionerand his family are still residing at Jabalpur. It has been denied that the petitioner or the members of his family are living at Delhi. The respondents have not seen any child going to and coming from the School, from the ground floor of the premises. It has been further denied that the son of the petitioner has adopted two children.

(6) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the matter at issue.

(7) It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the subsequent events which have happened after the judgment was delivered by the Trial Court may be taken into consideration in order to effectually decide the Revision Petition of the petitioner.

(8) On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the petitioner cannot be allowed to lead additional evidence and the documents cannot be looked into. The petitioner, if so advised, can bring out a fresh petition onthe basis of the changed circumstances.

(9) Mr. Rohtagi in support of his contention relied upon a judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Smt. Renu Seth v. M/s. Industrial & Allied Sales (P) Ltd., C.R. No. 164/1985 decided on 4.2.1987. In this case also the landlady filed a petition for eviction of the tenant which was contested by thetenant. The case set up by the landlady was that she was living in a rented house at Lucknow and she Along with her family members wanted to settle down at Delhi to start new business and at Delhi she had no reasonably suitable accommodation. The petition was dismissed by the Trial Court. The landlady filed a revision in the High Court. Along with the revision petition an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure wasfiled. In the application it was pleaded that the petitioner Along with the family members have permanently shifted to Delhi. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code was allowed and the case was remanded to the Additional Rent Controller with a direction that an opportunity be given to the landlady to prove the documents relating to the changed circumstances.

(10) The other Judgment relied on behalf of the petitioner is the case of R.B. Kapur v. Manek N. Dastur, 1985 Delhi 257. In this case it was held that the subsequent facts pleaded came into existence after the decision by the Rent Controller. Therefore, it was necessary to find out whether the first and second floor premises of the suit property had become available to the petitioner or not. This fact was likely to vitally affect the decision of the case one way or the other. It was not possible to do substantial justice without finding out the position with regard to first and second floor. The production of additional evidence would enable the Court to justly pronounce the judgment. There was substantial cause for permitting the admission of additionalevidence. This case was also remanded back to the Rent Controller for recording additional evidence.

(11) 0N behalf of the respondent Mr. Sahai relied upon a judgmentof this Court delivered in the case of Smt. Prakash Kaur v. Smt. Krishan Kanta,delivered in C.R. No. 649/1979 01111.2.1981. In this case the landlady filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the petitioner's husband was working in Canal Department of Bhakra in Punjab. He had retired from service and had finally decided to reside in Delhi in his house. All the relatives of the petitioner were mostly residing in Delhi. The petition was contested by the respondent. After discussing the evidence of the petitioner the Additional Rent Controller cams to the conclusion that the petitioner had not disclosed that her elder son, Jaswant Singh was living in Hissar and was employed as a Professor in D.N. College, Hissar. It was also found by theRent Controller that the petitioner had not disclosed any specific reason for preferring to reside in Delhi rather than Hissar. The petitioner filed a Revision Petition in this Court assailing the judgment of the Rent Controller.Along with the petition, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 7CPC for taking into consideration subsequent events which had come into existence after the decision of the case. Those events were that JaswantSingh son of the petitioner, who was previously working as Lecturer in Zoology at Hissar had been selected by the Kurukshetra University for the award of Teacher Fellowship under the University Grants Commission Scheme of Faculty Improvement. He had joined at Kurukshetra. Further circumstance mentioned in the application was that the husband of the petitioner had joined a job in Delhi. The application was opposed on behalf of the respondent. After discussing the contentions raised in the application, the application was dismissed for the reasons that in case the allegations of the petitioner in the application under Order 7 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code were correct, there was nothing to stop her from filing a fresh petition on the ground of bonafide requirement.The Court also observed that from the record it appeared that the notice issued to the petitioner even after the alleged employment of the petitioner's husband were served on her at Hissar and she had personally received the same. The transfer of the elder son of the petitioner also was for a period of three years,out of which 2 years had already expired.

(12) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter.I feel that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the ends of justice require that the application of the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 should beallowed, By so doing it can shorten the litigation and best attain the ends ofjustice. The evidence which is sought to be led on behalf of the petitioner is likely to vitally affect the decision of the case one way or the other. It can be said that there is substantial cause for allowing additional evidence. THE petition for eviction was filed in the year 1977. The petitioner wants to prove certain documents in order to show that he Along with all the membersof his family is residing on ground floor of the premises. Some of the documents are public documents-such as ration cards and bills of the telephone department but some of the documents are not public documents and those documents have to be proved in accordance with law. I feel that in case the petitioner is directed to filed a fresh petition of eviction under the changed circumstances it will not meet the ends of changed circumstances it will not meet the ends of justice. The petitioner is an old man of about 80 years and is alleged to be suffering from heart-ailment.

(13) In the result, I allow this application. The judgment of the TrialCourt is set aside and petitioner is permitted to lead additional evidence which has been placed on the record of this case. Of course the Rent Controller will permit the respondent to lead evidence in rebuttal. The Trial Court,after recording the additional evidence of the petitioner and the evidence ofthe respondent in rebuttal if any, will decide the case de novo. Since it is a1977 matter I would like to expedite the trial. The additional Rent Controller will decide the matter expeditiously and would dispose of the petition. within9 months. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on12.3.1992, who would retain the case himself or would assign to any other Additional Rent Controller for disposal. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.