Gargi Khosla And Ors. vs S.S. Walia
1991 Latest Caselaw 453 Del

JUDGMENT

S.N. Sapra, J.

(1) The present revision petition, filed by the owners/ landlords, under proviso to sub-Section 8 of Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter called the Act, is directed against the order dated April 20, 1987, whereby. Learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissed the petition of Shri R.K. Khosla, predecessor-in-interest of present petitioners, for eviction of respondent/tenant.

(2) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under :- Petitioners are the legal representatives and heirs of late Shri R.K. Khosla, who was the owner of the residential house, bearing municipal No. R-21, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi, comprising of drawing-cum-dining room, 3 bed rooms with attached baths, a kitchen, store, a garage and 2 small servant rooms, with attached lavatory above the garage. With effect from October 1, 1973, Shri R.K.Khosla, let out the entire house to respondent on the monthly rent of Rs. 1,400.00. No written agreement was executed between the parties. At that time, Shri R.K. Khosla was employed in Dunlop India Limited at Calcutta.

(3) As, Shri Khosla was due to retain in the end of May, 1981, so he required the said premises. Accordingly, in February, 1980, Shri Khosla filed a petition, under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act, against respondent for his eviction, on the ground, that the demised premises were required bonafide, as residence for himself and for his family members, dependent upon him. It was further alleged that a bad no other suitable residential accommodation, available to him.

(4) At the time of filing of the petition, the family of Shri Khosla comprised of himself, his wife, two sons, namely, Arjun Khosla aged 21 1/2 years and Ashok Khosla aged 19 1/2 years, Smt. Radha Vohra, the married daughter, but who had been deserted by her husband, and her daughter. It was also alleged that the accommodation, in occupation of Shri Khosla at Calcutta, was the one, which had been allotted to him, by his employer on account of his being in service.

(5) The case of respondent, as pleaded in the written statement, which was subsequently amended, was that Shri Khosla was neither the owner of the property, nor he had any legal right to file the petition for eviction of respondent. One Shri Khanna, who was receiving the rent from respondent, was the landlord of the property in question It was also denied that respondent was the tenant in the property. According to respondent, in the year 1973, M/s, Walia Enterprises, a partnership film, had taken the suit premises on rent, through Shri S.S. Walia, respondent, who had been managing partner of the firm. The premises were taken for the residence of the managing partner, as well as, for commercial purposes. The firm, M/s Walia Enterprises, had been having its branch office in the premises. M/s. Walia Enterprises had closed their export business in the year 1971. and respondent started the same business, under the name and style of Heman Exports Private Limited, in the property in question. Respondent was the Managing Director and Mrs. Urvashi was another Director of the. Company. The tenancy was transferred in the name of Hemant Exports Private Limited, in the year 1977, and thereafter it was the Company, who had been paying rent to its landlord.

(6) On merits, it was alleged that the premises were not required bonafide by Shri Khosla or his other family members. Shri Khosla was still in service and well settled at Calcutta, for the last so many years. Shri Ashok Khosla, one of the sons of Shri Khosla was a student at Calcutta, and, as such, Shri Khosla had no intention to settle at Delhi. Shri Ashok Khosla subsequently joined merchant navy. With regard to the other son, namely, Shri Arjun Khosla, it was alleged that he was not financially dependent upon his father. According to respondent, Shri Khosla had agreed to sell the property in question to him for a total consideration of Rs. 3.50 lakhs. As, the market value of the property increased so, Shri Khosla backed out of the bargain. With regard to Smt. Radha Vohra, respondent denied that she had been deserted by her husband.

(7) During the pendency of the proceedings before the Learned Additional Rent Controller and on August 25, 1983, Shri R.K Khosla expired. The present petitioners, who are the widow, sons and daughter of late Shri Khosla, filed an application, before the Learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, for substitution. Vide order dated January 18, 1984, Learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, allowed the application, on the ground that, since Shri Khosla had pleaded that the premises had been bonafide required by him, as well as, the members of his family, including his wife and deserted daughter, so, the cause of action survived.

(8) Parties produced oral, as well as, documentary evidence, in support of their respective pleas.

(9) Vide judgment dated April 20, 1987, Shri M.S. Sabbharwal, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissed the petition for eviction of respondent. Learned Additional Rent Controller held that the premises were let out by Shri Khosla to M/s. Walia Enterprises, a partnership firm, and not to Shri S.S. Walia, respondent, for commercial, as well as, residential purpose. It has been further held that Hemant Exports Pvt. Ltd., was accepted by Shri Khosla, as tenant in the year 1977.

(10) Learned Additional Rent Controller also held that the need of petitioners was neither genuine nor bonafide, mainly on the ground that Shri Khosla wanted to sell the property to respondent, but did not do so because of the increase in the price of the property. It has also been held that the need of the widow, namely, Smt. Gargi Khosla, could be met, if she would occupy the other property, bearing No. W-57, Greater Kailash, New Delhi which was sufficient for her need. With regard to the daughter, the findings of the Learned Additional Rent Controller are that it has not been proved that she had been deserted by her husband.

(11) The principles, governing the eviction of tenant, on the ground of bonafide requirement, as well as. the interference by the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, are well settled.

(12) The first question, which arises for decision, is, whether the premises in question, were let out to Shri S.S. Walia, respondent herein, or the partnership firm, namely, M/s Walia Enterprises.

(13) Both the parties have produced in evidence, large number of documents, in support of their respective pleas. Oral evidence has also been led in this regard.

(14) To show, that the premises were let out to respondent, several contentions were urged before me, by Shri V.P. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners. These arc that the premises were/are residential in nature and situated in a residential locality of Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi. According to Mr. Singh, the payment of rent by cheques, by respondent sometimes out of personal account and sometimes out of the accounts of M/s. Walia- Enterprises and/or M/s. Hemant Exports Private Limited, which were the business concerns of respondent, did not prove that the premises were let out to M/s. Walia Enterprises and not the respondent and that the purpose of letting was residential-cum-commercial. A tenant, under law, might receive rent from any source, and the source would not be deemed to be the tenant in the premises.

(15) Mr. Singh also argued that the entire correspondence, which has been placed on record by both the parties, clearly shows that the same was between Shri R.K. Khosla and Shri S.S. Walia individually and not between Shri R.K. Khosla and the partnership firm. Merely, because respondent was using the letterhead of his firm, for the purposes of correspondence, in no way suggests that respondent was corresponding with Shri Khosla, on behalf of the firm.

(16) On the other hand, Shri Amarjit Singh, learned counsel for respondent, heavily relied upon the payment of rent, by means of the cheques, issued by the firm, M/s Walia Enterprises and later on by M/s Hemant Exports Private Limited, as well as, various vouchers, signed by Shri Khosla or Mr Khanna, in token of the receipt of rent. The contention of Shri Amarjit Singh was that admittedly the premises were let out to respondent, through a property broker, M. Behl & Co. In his statement, Shri Behl, R.W. 7, deposed that the property was let out to M/s Walia Enterprises and not to Shri S.S. Walia Moreover, the first payment of rent was by means of 3 cheques. Exhibits R.W. 3/1 to R.W. 3/5, issued by M/s. Walia Enterprises, through respondent as the managing partner. Shri Amarjit Singh, invited attention of this Court to the fact that Shri R.K. Khosla failed to produce the property broker, on the plea that he was not traceable. It was respondent, who produced him and this shows that Shri Khosla had known that the property broker's evidence would go against him.

(17) It was argued on behalf of respondent that all the payments of rent were duly shown in the account books of M/s Walia Enterprises and later on of M/s Hemant Exports Private Limited. Copies of statement of accounts are Exhibit R.W. 1/6. It was also contended that Shr

(18) Admittedly, no agreement in writing was executed between the parties, concerning the letting out of the premises. Before dealing with the evidence, produced by the parties before the trial Court, I would like to mention certain facts, which have a direct bearing on the controversy between the parties.

(19) Shri R.K. Khosla was a Senior Executive, in Dunlop India Limited, posted at Calcutta, during the relevant period. He built two houses, both residential in the residential locality of Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi.

(20) Immediately before shifting to the suit premises No, R-21, respondent along with his family members, was residing in a nearby house bearing R-25. This house, comprised of 2 bed rooms with attached bath room, in addition to drawing and dining room etc. Admittedly, the family of respondent, which was residing in House No. R-25, consisted of himself, his wife, his father, his two grown up sisters, besides a servant. At that time, and in the year 1973, the partnership firm, namely, M/s Walia Enterprises was a family concern of respondent, having its show room at M-20, and the export division at M-21, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi. It may be noticed that these premises are situated in the market of Greater Kailash, New Delhi. From the evidence of respondent, it appears that two bed rooms accommodation at R-25, was not sufficient for his family, which had 5 members. It is but natural that he got on rent the premises in suit. which comprised of 3 bed rooms, in addition to drawing-cum-dining room, a garage and two servant rooms above.

(21) In my view, there is no substance in the plea of respondent that his family wanted to have the suit premises on rent, as the business was growing and he wanted to utilise the same, both for residential-cum-commercial purposes. If, it was so, then why respondent vacated house No. R-25, and occupied the suit premises.

(22) After the commencement of the tenancy, the first letter, which was written by respondent, is dated December 19, 1973, Exhibit A.W. 1/2. It will be useful to reproduce the contents of the letter, which are as under : Walia Enterprises Show room Head Office & Export Division M-20, Greater M-21, Greater Kailash Mkt-1 Kailash P. Box No. 4208 New Delhi-48 New Delhi-48 Phone 73338 Ref...... Dated 19.12.1973 Shri R.K. Khosla, (Dunlop House) Dunlop India Ltd.. 57-B, Mirza Ghalib St., CALCUTTA-16 Dear Mr. Khosla I wanted to write to you since I have occupied your building, but unfortunately, your representative Mr. Bahal was reluctant to give your address. I have stopped payment of the cheque for the first time and also the second time because the defects in your building, Mr. Bahal promised to remove, were not repaired. Even for the white washing and painting I had to engage my labour and spend money from my pocket, which was not my headache but of your agent to whom you have given the keys and authority. I do not want to have our relations in an unhealthy way, so I would request you if you are visiting Delhi in the near future, please contact me and we will discuss the matter. My telephone numbers are as under : Office 73338 Residence 632208 Thanking you, Yours faithfully. SD/- (S.S. Walia)"

(23) NO-DOUBT, respondent wrote this on the letterhead of the firm M/s. Walia Enterprises, but a bare reading of the contents of the letter, unequivocally shows that it was a personal letter by Shri Walia to Shri Khosla, who was posted at Calcutta, as General Manager, (Export), Dunlop India Limited. The words, "I wanted to write to you since I have occupied your building" and the words "I have to stop payment of the cheque-I had to engage my labour- please contact me and we will discuss the matter", appearing in the letter, convincingly establish that the premises were let out to respondent in his individual capacity and not to the partnership firm. In the same letter and at the end, he has given the telephone numbers of office, which was at M-21, Greater Kailash Market, and of residence, i.e. the suit premises.

(24) A large number of letters have been proved on record. Not a single letter has been written by respondent, on behalf of the partnership firm, and similarly, there is not a single letter, which was written by Shri Khosla, to the firm. All the letters were written by Shri Khosla to respondent, in his individual capacity and not as the managing partner of the firm. The contents of all the letters, which are Exhibits, do suggest that Shri Walia was dealing, as tenant in his individual capacity with Shri Khosla and not on behalf of M/s. Walia Enterprises. In None of the letterheads of the partnership firm or the company, the address of the premises in question is printed.

(25) There is no doubt that in the year 1978, two or three letters were written by respondent, as Managing Director of M/s. Hemant Exports Private Limited, but, Shri Khosla never dealt with the company. The vouchers of the company or the firm, only show the receipt of rent by the person, to whom the payment was made. These do not show, as to who was the tenant. The issue of cheques by the firm or the Company, also do not suggest that firm or the Company were the tenants. The cheques, which were sent by post to Shri Khosla, were all acknowledged by him, by means of letters and, those letters were written, not to the firm or the Company, who issued the cheques, but to respondent, who sent the cheques and who was the tenant.

(26) Now, I want to deal with the evidence of Shri Behl, R.W. 7. On his statement, Shri Amarjit Singh has relied heavily. This witness has deposed that premises were let out to M/s. Walia Enterprises and not to Shri S.S. Walia.

(27) The statement of this witness does not inspire confidence. It may be pointed out that when the house is a residential one and is situated in residential locality and the owner, who is employed outside, holds a high position, will certainly like to know, when the property is being let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose, as to which type of commercial activities will be carried out by the intending tenant. This witness has failed to state, as to what type of commercial activities, the partnership firm wanted to start in the house. In the written statement, respondent pleaded that the premises were let out for the residence of the managing partner of the firm, as well as, for commercial purposes. This witness has failed to state this. Moreover, statement of this witness is against the correspondence, which has been placed on record by both the parties.

(28) In my view, the Learned Additional Rent Controller has misread the evidence, mis-interpreted the documents and, in fact, has ignored and not taken into consideration the large number of letters, duly proved. These letters are very material and have a direct bearing on the result of the case.

(29) The story that in the year 1977, the tenancy was transferred in the name of M/s. Hemant Exports Private Limited, has no legs to stand. This appears to be an after thought. It may be noticed that in the original Written statement, this plea was not taken. It is really strange thing. This was a very material fact, because according to respondent, and at the time of filing of the petition, M/s. Hemant Exports Private Limited was the tenant. If this was the case, I fail to understand, as to why, this plea was not taken in the written statement. It was only after a period of 3 years, that an application for amendment was moved to include the plea that in the year 1977, the tenancy was transferred, by Mr. Khosla, in the name of M/s. Hemant Exports Private Limited. M/s. Hemant Exports Private Limited, being a company, incorporated under the Companies Act, is a legal entity. If it was to take a premises on lease, then, it was mandatory that a proper resolution of the Board of Directors, could have been passed. Merely stating that in the year 1977, the tenancy was transferred in the name of the Company, does not convince the conscious of this Court. This is so vague plea, which has to be rejected. The tenancy, in favor of a Company has to commence from a particular date and month. This was conveniently omitted, even in the amended written statement. Till the end of the year 1977 and thereafter, there are letters, written by respondent on the letterhead of M/s. Walia Enterprises, If the lease was transferred in the name of the Company, which is a legal entity, then why, Shri Khosla was corresponding, only with Shri Walia in his individual capacity. The plea in the written statement is very vague, as it is not stated, as to when, Shri Khosla gave his consent for transfer of the tenancy in favor of the Company. In my view, respondent Shri Walia continued to be the tenant. The company never became the tenant.

(30) Large number of letters, produced by the parties and which are duly proved, conclusively establish that not only the premises were let out to Shri Walia, but, he continued to be the tenant. Some of these letters are Exhibits Aw 1/5 to Aw 1/30. I would like to refer to the original letter dated May 1, 1979, which is Exhibit Aw 1/24, written by Shri Walia to Shri Khosla. This letter is not even on the letterhead of the firm or the company. In this letter, respondent informed Shri Khosla that he had carried out the repairs in the house, on the instructions of Shri Khosla and gave the details of the cost and charges, incurred by him. This was for the purpose of adjusting the rent.

(31) The other question, of course connected with the first one, which requires determination, is whether, the premises were let out for residential purpose alone or for residential-cum-commercial purpose.

(32) I have already held that the premises were let out to Shri Walia and not to M/s. Walia Enterprises.

(33) Besides, relying upon the statement of Shri M. Behl, R.W. 7, learned counsel for respondent, laid emphasis on the statements of three other witnesses, namely, Shri Balram Berara R.W. 4, Shri Mohan Singh, R.W. 5 and Shri Prem Prakash Suri, R.W. 6. These witnesses deposed that in part of the premises in dispute, the business of packing etc. was carried on. Shri Amarjit Singh argued that the premises were partly used for commercial purposes, with the consent of Shri Khosla.

(34) A perusal of the letters, exchanged between the parties, shows that there is no reference to the use of the premises for commercial purposes in any of the letters. Moreover, the premises are residential one and situated in residential locality. As already observed, above Shri Walia was residing in R. 25. This was a two bed rooms accommodation. He was having a large family, therefore, he shifted to the present accommodation, having 3 bed rooms. In none of the letterheads, the name of the premises in question is mentioned. Moreover, the correspondence was between Shri Khosla and Shri Walia. In my opinion, the premises were let out to Sh. S.S. Walia, respondent herein, only for residential purposes.

(35) It is now well settled that the landlord is not the sole Judge of his requirement. The bonafide need of the owner, is to be assessed by the Court, objectively. Now, the points, which arise for determination are, whether, Shri Khosla required the premises bonafide, for his residence and for the residence of other members of his family, dependent upon him. After his death, whether, the premises are required as such, by his legal representatives and heirs. The other point is, whether, petitioners or anyone of them have no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.

(36) Mainly relying upon the copies of the letters dated August 9, 1979 Exhibit R.W. 1/7, and dated January 25. 1980, Exhibit R. 13, the Additional Rent Controller held that Shri Khosla, the deceased petitioner, wanted to sell the property to respondent, but did not do so, because of. the increase in the price of the properties. As such, Shri Khosla did not require the suit property for bids residence and for the residence of members of his family.

(37) Before examining the worth of this piece of evidence, produced by respondent, it will be proper to refer to the letters, exchanged between Shri Khosla and Shri Walia, immediately before and after these two letters dated August 9, 1979 band January 25, 1980.

(38) Before this, it will be proper to refer to this plea, taken by respondent in his written statement.

(39) According to respondent, the eviction petition had been filed against him, only to put undue pressure on him, so that, either respondent might increase the rent or petitioner would get the premises vacated or sell the same, after getting handsome amount. It was alleged in the written statement that such type of offer was given by petitioner to respondent, and in August 1979. Shri Khosla had agreed to sell the property in question to Shri Walia, for the total consideration of Rs. 3.50 lakhs. The offer was accepted by respondent and duly communicated by him, vide his letter dated August 9, 1979, and followed by another letter dated January 25, 1980, but Shri Khosla, did not send any reply to respondent, became the market value of the property in question increased.

(40) This plea, to my mind. is very vague, because, it lakhs material particulars, with regard to the giving of offer and acceptance of the same. Whether, the offer was verbal or by writting, because Shri Khosla was posted at Calcutta, is not stated. The date of the offer and the terms of sale are also not given. It is also not stated, as to when Shri Khosla backed from the bargain.

(41) In his statement on oath, Shri Khosla denied all these allegations.

(42) In his statement, made before the Court, Shri Walia stated that In the year 1979, Shri Khosla had agreed to sell the property to him, for a total price of Rs. 3.50 lakhs and in accepting the offer, Shri Walia had written two letters.

(43) Vide letter dated May 9,1979, copy of which is Exhibit Aw 1/26, sent by registered Ad post, Shri Khosla stated that during his last visit in Delhi, he had mentioned to Shri Walia that his family would be moving to Delhi and, as such, requested Shri Walia to vacate the house. It was also stated that Shri Walia had promised to vacate the same before July, 1979. By this letters, Shri Khosla requested Shri Walia to confirm that he would vacate the house, by the end of July, 1979. This letter was admittedly received by Shri Walia.

(44) Another letter dated October 24, 1979, copy of which is Exhibit Aw 1/8, was written by Shri Khosla to Shri Walia. In other words, this letter was after the letter dated August 9, 1979. In this letter, there is no mention of any offer, given by Shri Khosla. In this letter, Shri Khosla pointed out that rent was due from August to October, 1979. In this letter, it was also stated that it was becoming embarrassing for Shri Khosla, for making repeated calls on Shri Walia to pay the rent from time to time. Shri Khosla also wrote letter dated August 17, 1979, copy of which is Exhibit Aw 1/7 to Shri Walia. In this letter, Shri Khosla acknowledged the receipt of a cheque for Rs. 4,200.00, being the rent for the months of May, June and July, 1979.

(45) Another letter dated January 2, 1980. copy of which is Exhibit Aw 1/5, was sent-by Shri Khosla to Shri Walia, by means of registered Ad post. Again, in this letter, Shri Khosla regretted that Shri Walia was not making the payment of rent, in spite of repeated demands. This was in fact a notice, sent by Shri Khosla.

(46) Then, there is a letter dated November 9, 1979, copy of which is Exhibit Aw 1/6, with regard to payment of rent. Another letter dated January 3,1979, copy of which is Exhibit Aw 1/10, was written by deceased petitioner to Shri Walia, in which Shri Khosla stated that on his last visit to Delhi os December 28, 1978, Shri Walia had confirmed that he would vacate the premise by April. 1979. This letter has not been disputed. All these letters suggest than Shri Khosla had not given any offer for sale of the house, but on the contrary, during this period, he was repeatedly requesting Shri Walia, either for payment of the arrears of rent and/or to vacate the premises. Not only this, Shri Khosla had made reference to the meetings, on December 28, 1979, in which, Shri Walia had promised to vacate the premises.

(47) Much reliance has been placed on the 2 letters dated August 9, 1979, and January 25, 1980, Exhibits Rw 1/7 and R 13. In the letter dated August 9, 1979, Shri Walia stated that he was hoping that. Shri Khosla was still considering his offer, which Shri Khosla had given to Shri Walia, earlier for sale of the house for Rs. 3.50 lakhs and that he was awaiting for his final instructions. What it means. Nothing. When the offer was given and how it was given and according to Shri Walia, he was still awaiting for the final instructions from Shri Khosla. But, in the written statement, the plea was that the offer was accepted by him. Here, there is no evidence of any offer, having been given by Shri Khosla. Then, the letter dated January 25, 1980, is not only contrary to the earlier letter, but is self contradictory. In one para, Shri Walia stated that Shri Khosla was still considering his offer, which he house, he had backed out. When Shri Khosla backed out and how he backed out, is also very vague. In my opinion, this false plea has been taken by Shri Walia in these two letters with a view to create evidence, to thwart any attempt on the part of Shri Khosla to get the house vacated.

(48) It may be pointed out that Shri Khosla was posted at Calcutta and he did retire on May 31, 1981. The document, in this regard is Exhibit Rw 1/32. He was in occupation of an accommodation, at Calcutta, which had been allotted to him by his employer, by virtue of his being in service. He came to Delhi along with his other members of the family. Therefore, it could not be said that the requirement of Shri Khosla was not genuine and bonafide.

(49) The finding of the Learned Additional Rent Controller, that the need of the petitioners was not bonafide, is not only contrary to the record, but is perverse one as, the trial Court has ignored the material documents and, in fact, has not made any reference to the same, in its judgment,

(50) Respondent has filed an application, being C.M. No. 568 of 1991 under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, thereby, seeking permission to lead additional evidence to show, that respondent had a sound financial position to purchase the property for Rs. 3.50 lakhs. Along with this, photostat copies of certain documents have been annexed.

(51) I have decided this point, with regard to the alleged offer by Shri R.K. Khosla, to sell the property, without going into the question of financial position of respondent. Therefore, the application needs no further consideration and stands disposed off.

(52) At the time of filing of the petition, family of Shri R.K Khosla consisted of himself, his wife, his two sons, the deserted daughter and her minor daughter. During the pendency of the proceedings, Shri Khosla expired. The eldest son, namely, Shri Arjun Khosla got married and started business. The other son Shri Ashok Khosla joined Merchant Navy. Thus, after the death of Shri R.K. Khosla, the need of the family almost remained the same. except that the younger son joined Merchant N y. With regard to the eldest son, there is a controversy whether, he had business, both at Jammu and Delhi or only at Jammu.

(53) While considering the need of petitioners. Learned Additional Rent Controller held that, no evidence had been placed on record to prove that either Smt. Radha Vohra, daughter of Shri Khosla, had been deserted, by her husband or that she along with her daughter Aditya was residing with petitioners.

(54) Co say the least, it shows a total non application of mind, on the part of the Additional Rent Controller. At the time of filing the petition, it was pleaded that Smt. Radha Vohra had been deserted by her husband and that the matter was pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Calcutta. Shri R.K. Khosla deposed on oath that the Third Additional District Judge, Alipur Calcutta, passed a decree of divorce dated May 25, 1981, thereby, dissolving the marriage between his daughter and her husband. Certified copy of the judgment is Exhibit Aw 1/31 to show that Smt. Radha Vohra and her husband had been separated. The findings on this aspect is also perverse.

(55) Mr. Khosla deposed that his daughter was residing with him. It is but natural that after desertion by her husband, she has been residing with her parents and after the death of her father with her mother, along with her minor child. Now, a decree of divorce has been passed by the Court, so, she has been residing with her mother at present.

(56) While considering the need of Smt. Gargi Khosla, widow of late Shri R.K. Khosla, Learned Additional Rent Controller held that the other house No. W-57, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, was more than sufficient for her need and, even if her son- and daughter would visit her occasionally, they could also be accommodated in that house. This finding has been given on the ground, that no evidence was led to show that this house No. W-57, was in occupation of a tenant.

(57) This finding shows the total non application of mind. The fact, that the other house bearing No. W-57, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, was in the occupation of a tenant, was an admitted one. In the petition for eviction, it was alleged that the other house, W-57, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, was a double storey residential house and that the same had been let out at Rs. 1,000.00 per mensem. It was also alleged that it was not suitable for the requirement of the petitioner, In the written statement, the fact that this house was in the occupation of another tenant, was not denied.

(58) Mr. Khosla also deposed that the other house was in the occupation of a tenant, at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000.00. R.W. 1, respondent, in his statement before the Court, also admitted that the other house was in occupation of a tenant, at the monthly rent of Rs. 800.00 or Rs. 900.00.

(59) In view of these admissions, that the other house was in the occupation of a tenant, no such findings could be given by the Learned Additional Rent Controller, that no evidence had been led by petitioners to prove that the other house had been let out to another tenant.

(60) I am of the firm view that atleast Smt. Gargi Khosla widow of late Shri R..K. Khosla, her daughter Smt. Radha Vohra and the minor daughter Aditya, bonafide require the premises in question, for their residential purposes. No doubt, Shri Arjun Khosla has been carrying on the business at Jammu and there is no evidence to show that he also partly carries on the business at Delhi. But, the fact remains that the premises in dispute is the family house, in which he has also an equal share. Certainly, be or bids family would be coming to Delhi, to stay with her mother occasionally. So is the case with the younger son, who is in the Merchant Navy.

(61) I am also satisfied that there is no alternative suitable residential accommodation, available with Smt. Gargi Khosla and her daughter. An affidavit has been filed to show that the widow, along with her deserted daughter, has been staying in various places, mostly as guest. During the course of arguments, it was submitted that at present, Smt. Radha Vohra was in Pondicherry, where, her minor child was admitted in a school. This was because he had no residential accommodation to live at Delhi.

(62) Under the facts & circumstances of the case, I allow the revision petition, and set aside the impugned order dated April 20,1987, with costs. I pass the order of eviction in favor of petitioners and against respondent, on the ground, covered by clause (e) of sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of Delhi Rene Control Act, in respect of the suit premises No. R-21, Greater Kailash Part It New Delhi, as shown in the plan, filed by petitioners. I grant six months time, to respondent, to vacate the premises in question.