Shambhu Nath vs Surinder Kumar Sharma
1991 Latest Caselaw 433 Del

JUDGMENT

Santosh Duggal, J.

(1) This is landlord's revision petition filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), assailing the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi passed on 19th July, 1985 whereby his petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act was dismissed.

(2) The petitioner had approached the Rent Controller with the aforesaid eviction petition filed on 23rd January, 1981 for order of eviction against the respondent, Surinder Kumar Sharma, a tenant under him in respect to premises consisting of one room, one kitchen and a common bath room and latrine on the ground floor of premises bearing No. 2-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, of which the petitioner claims to be the owner/landlord. The petition was based on the plea that the petitioner had a large family consisting of himself, his wife, aged mother, six sons-two of whom were married, and a married daughter, living in Delhi and the accomodation which he had in his occupation on the first floor of the said properly was highly insufficient, that premises under the tenancy of the respondent were bona fide required for his personal requirement and that of his sons and other members of the family, who were all pleaded to be dependent upon him for residence.

(3) The petition contains details of the accommodation and occupation with respective member of petitioner's family, including himself. It was further stated that two sons who were married had also children, out of whom Pradeep Kumar had two children and was occupying two rooms and the kitchen for himself and his family and the other son Pramod Kumar had gone to California and had a daughter. It was added in the parenthesis that the said son Pramod Kumar had since returned from U.S.A. The ages of other four sons were given as 31 years, 29 years. 25 years and 22 years, pleading that all of them were of marriageable age.

(4) The tenant.after obtaining leave to defend, Contested the eviction petition on number of grounds, and the plea of the landlord/owner about bonafide personal requirement was resisted vehemently. It was contended that there is absolute lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner, and that originally there were three tenants in the properly, and all of them old tenants, but the petitioner insisted on increase of rent and on the tenants declining to comply, had harassed them by refusing to accept rent and they were constrained to deposit the rent in Court under Section 27 of the Act and it was only when the tenants agreed to increase the rent that the petitioner started issuing receipts and that in his case, rent was increased from Rs. 35.00 p.m to Rs. 110.00 p.m.

(5) He further alleged that one tenant Ram Niwas Minda bad in his, tenancy three rooms on the ground floor, besides kitchen, one bath and one kitchen and he was using the entire portion in his tenancy for residential purposes, but after the said tenant vacated and handed over possession of the entire premises udder his tenancy to the petitioner; the latter started using the same for commercial purposes by showing that he had office there in the said three rooms, and was keeping them locked unnecessarily It was contended that opening of the office in purely residential building and in a residential locality was with an oblique motive to evict the remaining tenants including the respondent. The respondent specifically alleged that the petitioner and his sons have office accommodation in Rajindra Piace, New Delhi at 202 Rattan Jyoti building and had telephone being No 564648 installed there, and that getting the business registered in this residential building on vacation by a tenant was a manoeuvre to create false evidence of shortage and seek eviction of the remaining tenants.

(6) The respondent also alleged that all she six sons of the petitioner were not residing with him, and that one son Pramod Kumar with his wife and children even after return from California were residing separately, Another son was living in Bombay and his telephone numbers were given as 234919 and 225971 and that another son was having residence at Dehradun, where he was doing business with Oil and Natural Gas Commission. It was further contended that ail of petitioner's sons were major, self earning and financially independent, and there was no legal ground to allow the plea of the said sons to be the bona fide requirement of the petitioner. It was alleged that the married son Pradeep Kumar was living in 2-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi with his wife and children but having a separate mess and separate ration card and was quite independent of the petitioner and his needs cannot be included as those of the petitioner. The details of the total accommodation available with the petitioner were given as under : 1. Barsati floor comprising of one room and terrace. 2. Fight living rooms, two kitchens, two bath room, two latrines on the first floor. 3., Six rooms, oue mezzanine room, well ventilated, one kitchen, one bath, and one latrine with common courtyard on the ground floor This made 16 living rooms, three kitchens, three bath room, open courtyard and terrace and (hat one of the two garages was not being used for parking cars but as a room and kept and the petitioner was in fact using the same as his office. He thus categorically controverter the plea of bona fide requirement of the petitioner qua premises under his tenancy.

(7) The petitioner in the replication admitted certain facts inch as three rooms on the ground floor, along with a kitchen and bath room and latrine having been vacated by the previous tenant Ram Niwas Minda, but pleaded that the entire portion so vacated was being used as his office. He also controverter the allegation that three of his sons were living separately from him, either in Delhi or anywhere else, such as Bombay or Dehradun, as contended by the tenant. He further pleaded that in fact two of his song, namely, Parveen Kumar and Prakash Kumar have got married subsequently to the filling of the eviction petition He asserted that his son Pramod Kumar returned from Usa in August 1982, and was residing with him in the same premises and he has been blessed with a son on 27th October, 1982. The possession of a separate ration card by the elder son Pradeep Kumar was explained by saying that it was only for securing another gas connection, but otherwise they were having common kitchen. He denied that offices were being maintained in the three rooms on the ground floor with any ulterior motive, and pleaded that offices of M/s. Parveen Industries Pvt Ltd and M/s. Indian War Supply Syndicate have been housed therein for the last 20 years and the Rajendra Place premises were in occupation of a different concern, namely, M/s. Parveen International Pvt. Ltd. and that concern has a branch office at Bombay, but none of his sons lived at Bombay. He reiterated his need for additional accommodation for which the tenancy premises were required.

(8) The learned Additional Rent Controller appraised the requirement of the landlord/petitioner vis-a-vis the pleas in the eviction petition and what came out in evidence, and recorded the finding that the petitioner was the owner/landlord of the premises, and that the portion under tenancy of the respondent had been let out for residential purposes, and was being used as such by the tenant and also that no lack of bona fide requirement had been established, and that there was no evidence that the eviction petition bad been filed with any ulterior motive, such as increase of rent.

(9) The Additional Rent Controller further found that the number of family members was admitted by the tenant and (he plea that all (he sons were not residing with the petitioner at 2-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi was not borne out by any evidence, which was incumbent on the respondent to produce, and in this situation he had to accept the plea of the petitioner about the number of his family members living in the premises, and dependent upon him for residence. because he was of the view that even though the tons were grown-up and earning hands, not financially dependent on the petitioner, still they could be treated dependent upon him for residence, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

(10) As regards the accommodation available of the petitioner, it was summed up to be consisting of 8 rooms on the first floor, three rooms on the ground floor, two rooms on the mezzanine floor besides two garages on the ground floor. The Additional Rent Controller, while accepting that the petitioner was having the business of M/s. Praveen Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Indian War Supply Syndicate conducted from these premises since long before the institution of the eviction petition ; opined that there was no justification to have two rooms for the business of M/s. Indian War Supply Syndicate, and that one room each for the business concern was sufficient. On this conclusion, it was held that one out of the three rooms on the ground floor becomes available to the petition. The plea that even one of the garages is being used not for purposes of parking car but either storage or office purposes was, however, not accepted. It was also noticed that during the pendency of the eviction petition, one of the tenants, namely, Mr. Gulshan Kumar had vacated the portion in his occupation pursuant to an eviction order obtained by (he petitioner by filing an eviction petition, also on the pica of bona fide necessity, and that portion consisted of one mezzanine room and one kitchen. The plea of the petitioner that this mezzanine room vacated by the tenant Gulshan Kumar was not habitable was turned down on the ground that (he petitioner had got vacant possession of this portion by filing eviction petition on the plea of bonafide requirement of residence and that it did not now lie in his mouth to say that the said mezzanine room was not fit for residence.

(11) He held, therefore, that as a result, eight rooms on the first floor, two rooms on the mezzanine floor, and one room on the ground floor are available to the petitioner; besides kitchens, bath rooms and common courtyard and other common bath room etc The Additional Rent Controller assessed the requirement of the petitioner as under : 1. One room for petitioner and his wife 2. Four rooms for four married sons. 3. Two rooms for two unmarried sons. 4. One rooms as dining room. 5. One room as drawing room. 6. One room for studies of grand children.

(12) Thus, the petitioner's requirement was assessed for ten rooms, holding that the petitioner had already in his occupation eleven rooms, as detailed above, and thus he had ore room surplus. Petitioner's plea that son Pradeep Kumar and his family were occupying two bed rooms was considered to be untenable for the reason that he was not obliged to provide two room set to any of his sons, and that for the dependent members there can be no claim for more than one room each.

(13) It may be noted in passing that in the eviction petition, one room was pleaded to be required for mother of the petitioner, but she admittedly died during pendency of the petition, and consequently that ground became non est.

(14) On this assessment and appraisal of the accommodation available with the petitioner and his requirement, it was held that the he no more required the tenanted portion of the respondent and thus the eviction petition was dismissed.

(15) The present revision petition is directed against this dismissal by assailing the view taken by the Additional Rent Controller on the totality of the accommodation available with the petitioner and also assessment of his requirement. It is contended that the Additional Rent Controller has erred in holding that one of the three rooms used as offices, should be available to him for his residence and members of his family, and that this finding was not sustainable once it was proved on record that the offices had been there both M/s Praveen Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Indian War Supply Syndicate since the year i960 The finding of the Additional Rent Controller is also contended to be vitiated in respect to the mezzanine floor rooms by contending that these rooms were not at living rooms, and were only duchhatti stores, each having height of 5' 6" and these did not specify the test of living rooms, as per municipal bye-laws and these two rooms could not have been taken into consideration in determining the accommodation available with the petitioner.

(16) It was pleaded, therefore, that excluding one room on the ground floor, wrongly taken up as for residence, as also two rooms on the mezzanine floor, which were not living rooms, the petitioner is left with an accommodation of only 8 rooms on the first floor, and this was not sufficient accommodation as per the criterion adopted by the Controller himself and that when there was a finding of absence of mala fide, and existence of bona fide personal requirement in favor of the petitioner, then an eviction order in respect to the tenancy premises ought to have been pasted, and that the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the eviction petition was both contrary to facts and law and liable to be set aside

(17) Mr. Rohatgi appearing for the petitioner argued in the first instance that there is error manifest on the face of the impugned order dismissing the eviction petition, for she reason that despite the fact that the Controller had accepted as correct the fact about number of members of the petitioner's family, he has gone wrong in coming to the conclusion that the accommodation already available was sufficient for the requirement of the petitioner, and that this is result of erroneous approach adopted by him inasmuch as be has included even the mezzanine floor room to be a room which could be utilised for living purposes by a member of petitioner's family, and further erred in considering one room on the ground floor available for living purposes, inspite of the clear evidence that all the three rooms on the ground floor were being used for office purposes. Mr. Rohatgi further argued that there has also been error in not taking into consideration the fact that even a married daughter in the social set up to which the petitioner belongs frequently visits her parents with her husband and children and even stays there, and as such the requirement of one separate room had to be kept in consideration. He further contended that it has been established on record that the petitioner was a man of status, and has grown up married sons and was thus entitled to comfortable accommodation and beneficial enjoyment of his property.

(18) Before I proceed to examine these contentions on merits, I would like to deal with a preliminary objection raised by Mr.Ahluwalia, counsel for the respondent, as to the maintainability of the present revision petition, on the contention that no question of law has been set out in the revision petition, and that it was now settled law that a revisional court cannot be called upon to examine correctness of an order on mere questions of fact, like an appellate court could be He referred to the amendment brought about in the Delhi Rent Control Act by Amendment Act of 1988, and argued that the legislative intent to accord finality to findings of fact is clear from the changes effected by making first appeal to the Tribunal, under Section 38 of the Act, admissible only on a point of law, and by repealing altogether Section 39 that related to the second appeal Learned counsel contended that keeping in view this scheme of the Act, and also having regard to the fact that the scope of a revision under Section 25-B(8) of the Act is limited only to examination by the High Court of an order passed on an eviction petition for the purpose of satisfying itself as to whether that order was according to law, and in this view of the matter, the present revision petition could not be entertained, which would preclude examination of questions of fact. He emphasized that a reading of the impugned order reveals that the Controller had recorded a finding as to the number of members of petitioner's family, and the accommodation with him, and found that to be sufficient for his requirements, and that it was not open to the petitioner to seek reappraisal of this finding of fact by filing this revision petition.

(19) Mr. Ahluwalia placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as 1988 (2)R.C.R.1.Hiralal Kapur v. Prabhu Choudhury wherein it was held that although the powers of the High Court under Section 25-B(8) were somewhat wider than similar powers of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was well established by series of decisions of the Court that the power of revision under the Rent Control Act does not entitle the High Court to enter into merits of the factual controversies between the parties and to reverse a finding of facts in this regard. That judgment was based on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Helper Girdharbhai v.Saiyed Mohmad. and Sushila Devi v. Avinash Chandra Jain, .

(20) Mr. Ahluwalia also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported as 1980(1) R.C. J.n 36, S. Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma, where it was held that the High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the Act would not sit in judgment over a mere finding of fact arrived at by the Controller on the evidence before him or interfere merely because on the same facts it is likely that another court may come to a different conclusion.

(21) Mr. Rohatgi's reply to this contention was that where mixed questions of facts and law are involved, it would certainly be competent for the High, Court to entertain revision petition and examine ihe correctness of the order under challenge. He placed reliance on another Supreme Court judgment reported as 1980 (1) R.C.J. 524, Shri Vinod Kumar Chowdhry v. Smt. Narain Devi Taneja. where it was held that a revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Act, would be maintainable even where landlord's person for eviction was dismissed. He pointed out that a reading of this Judgment would real that the Court dismissed the appeal of the tenant. upholding the order passed by the High Court in the revision petition, filed by the landlord under Section 25-B(8), where the question involved was that of fact as to whether the premises from which tenant's eviction was sought comprised only a part of the tenancy premises, not on the view that the Supreme Court cannot interfere in respect to such a question, and disturb finding of fact. Obviously, High Courts order, in a revision petition dealing with that question was not faulted. Mr. Rohatgi argued that this was so because the question as to whether an eviction can be sought from the premises, which were allegedly only a part of the tenancy premises, was a mixed question of fact and law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on a latter judgment of this Court reported as 1988 (2) R.C J. 398, Smt. Darshan Garg v. Sri Kishan Das, where it was held that where a finding has been given by the Controller ignoring some important piece of evidence or by mis-interpreting the evidence, then such finding can always be set aside by this Court exercising its power of revision conferred by Section 25-B(8) of the Act. The questions which were taken up for scrutiny an revision petition in that case were as to whether the Controller had arrived at correct finding by not taking into consideration the requirement of each grown up children of the landlord/petitioner for a separate room.

(22) MR.ROHATGI contended-that similarly, in this case, mixed questions of law and facts arose such as, whether the mezzanine floor could be treated to be a room fit enough for being used as a living room. and further that the question as to the requirements of a married daughter was also not merely a question of fact.

(23) ALTHOUGH. I would like to proceed to dispose of the revision petition, which stands already admitted, and has been beard fully on merits. and not detain myself on this controversy, but nevertheless I would like to record that Mr. Ahluwalia's opposition to the entertainability of the present revision petition is misconceived, because irrespective of the fact as to whether the petitioner ultimately succeeds or not in his contentions raised in the revision petition, but there can be no gainsaying the fact that the questions raised are mixed questions of law and facts ; particularly, as to whether a mezzanine floor can be deemed to be a habitable accommodation, and secondly as to whether requirements of a married daughter are to be altogether ignored. It becomes thus a case involving guidelines, and examination of how requirement of a landlord/petitioner ought to be appraised, and how his plea is to be construed in the backdrop of proven facts. The objection. as to the maintainability of the present revision is not thus validly taken, on the facts of this case.

(24) Now, reverting to the contentions on merits, it is to be noted that Mr. Rohatgi's first argument was as to the judgment being erroneous on account of mezzanine floor having been taken into account to say that these could meet requirement of two of the members of the petitioner's family, implying that they were fit to be used as living rooms. He cited a judgment. of this Court, reported as 1980(2) R.C.R 405, Shri Utlam Chand v. Smt. Ram Murti Gnpta. where it was held that a mezzanine or a kitchen could not be considered living rooms while assessing requirement of the landlord for accommodation. He read from the judgment to say that the learned Judge had taken into consideration the specifications laid down by the Municipal Corporation (building bye-laws), and held on facts that the height and dimensions of the mezzanine floor room in that case did not conform with the said specifications. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case also, a reference to the site plan filed with the eviction petition would show that the measurements of the mezzanine floor rooms are such that these do not satisfy the criteria laid down by the Corporation's building bye-laws for a living room.

(25) I have examined this contention of Mr. Rohatgi. Ordinarily, this argument could have prevailed but regrettably not in the present case. As Mr. Ahluwalia rightly pointed out that it has come on record that one of the mezzanine floor rooms, together with a kitchen were under the tenancy of one Gulshan Kumar, and that the petitioner filed an eviction petition against that tenant, also on the plea of bona fide requirement of residence for himself and other members of his family. I find that the petitioner himself has filed a copy of the eviction order dated 6th August, 1984 with his additional affidavit, in this revision petition. It appears from this order that that eviction petition was also filed in 1982, like the present one, where date of institution is 23rd January, 1982. A reading of the order reveals that on the same pies of number of members of the family, and insufficiency of accomodation available with the petitioner, the eviction of the tenant Gulshan Kumar was ordered in respect of the premises under his tenancy. He was given, as per requirement of law, six months' time to vacate the premises and he has admittedly vacated the premises, pursuant to the eviction order. The contention, as is now being raised here, was put forward precisely in the same terms before the Controller, in this case, namely, that the mezzanine floor cannot be treated fit for living purposes. The Controller held that in view of the fact that the petitioner himself bad got vacant possession of the mezzanine floor room, along with kitchen from Gulshan Kumar tenant, on the plea of bona fide requirement of residence, it does not now lie in his mouth to say that the mezzanine floor room was not an accommodation which could be treated as living room. I do not find any error in the view taken by the Controller, as the landlord cannot be permitted to take opportunistic stances, as it suit him, and approbate and reprobate on same tacts. More 80, in this case, when, as already observed, that eviction petition was filed contemporaneously with the one in the present case.

(26) In so far as the requirement of the married daughter is concerned. here also the Controller has nowhere stated that it does not fall into any reckoning because according to the finding recorded by him, there is one room still spare with the petitioner and that room can very well be used for the visiting married daughter and other guests. No flaw can, therefore, be found in the judgment on that account also. For this reason, I do not find it necessary to take notice of the authorities cited by the petitioner's counsel in respect to the requirement of a married daughter, while assessing the requirement of the petitioner, because as already noted, the Controller has nowhere discounted such a requirement.

(27) The only point remaining to be examined is that of assessment of petitioner's requirement. A reading of the judgment reveals that stands examined and analysed vis-a-vis the number of rooms available with the petitioner. The only issue joined by the petitioner is that the Controller erred in calculating the living rooms at the disposal of the petitioner. His contention that the mezzanine floor room cannot be considered, as a fit accommodation, has already been rejected in face of the facts and circumstances of this case.

(28) Mr. Rohatgi then argued that having returned a finding in favor of the petitioner that there were offices on the ground floor in all the three rooms in possession of the petnoner, there was no valid reason for the Controller to have assessed petitioner's requirement and come to the conclusion that one room each will suffice for each of the business concerns for office purposes, and consequently one room will become surplus. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner has established on record that these offices existed since long and once the fact was established that they were there, the Controller could not go further and gay as to how much accommodation ought to be utilised for the offices. Mr. Rohatgi also argued that the records from the office of the Shops and Establishment Department showed that these offices were there since the year 1960, and so this requirement cannot be examined afresh, and all that the Controller ought to have seen was the availability of the number of living rooms at the disposal of the petitioner, and if the right view was taken, then these three rooms on the ground floor had to be excluded and once that is done. the availability of the accommodation with the petitioner obviously falls short of his requirement.

(29) Mr. Rohatgi further argued that, as additional affidavit filed in this Court would reveal, the petitioner's finaly had in fact enlarged on account of the fact that two of the remaining sons have also got married and further that some grand children have been born during the pendency of the petition; and to that extent number of family members has increased, and these circumstances have also to be taken note of by this Court while disposing of the revision petition. He placed reliance on observations made in a judgment of the Supreme Court , Rabindra Kumar Ghosel v. The State of West Bengal, that :

"FOR making the right or remedy claimed by the part just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautions cognisance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed.".

(30) On the strength of this judgment, Mr. Rohatgi argued that when an event takes place in the landlord's family, which has material bearing on the question of his requirement, that ought to be taken into consideration. He also referred to a judgment of this Court reported as 1987 (2) R.C.J. 179, K.D. Khanna v, D.R Puri, to the effect that the status of the landlord is also a relevant consideration while adjudging his plea of requirement of additional accommodation for himself and members of his family dependent upon him, because in the reported case the tact that the landlord was a retired class I officer and his two sons were also working as officers weighed substantially with the Court while assessing his requirement. Mr. Rohatgi argued that on party of reasoning. it being proved on record by filing income-tax returns and orders that he petitioner and all his sons were flourishing businessmen and paying income-tax, the Court ought to recognise and respect their desire for a beneficial use of their own property. Learned counsel pointed out that in the reported judgment in the case of K.D. Khanna (supra), it was even observed that there are various decisions of this Court that ordinarily if the landlord required, he was entitled to two rooms for a married son with a child. Mr. Rohatgi contended that in face of this, the view expressed by the Controller that the landlord cannot ask for more than one room for each of his dependent sons, whether married or unmarried, is erroneous.

(31) For all these considerations, Mr. Rohatgi argued that the dismissal of the eviction petition cannot be sustained because after excluding the mezzanine floor rooms, which could at best be used for storage purposes, and the three rooms on the ground floor occupied as office accommodation the landlord was left with only 8 living rooms on the first floor, and that it is shown by affidavit that the eldest son of the petitioner has two grown up children studying in 12th and 10th class and that he could legitimately ask for separate room for these grown up children.

(32) Mr. Rohatgi's arguments, though specious are not tenable, because it has already been found that the plea about mezzanine floor room not being fit for habitable is not available to the petitioner, as he would certainly be estopped from now pleading this, after he obtained possession of this accommodation, by filing an eviction petition against the tenant on the plea of bona fide requirement for residence He cannot now be allowed to turn around, and say that this mezzanine floor is not fit as a living room.

(33) In so far as the finding as to the three rooms on the ground floor is concerned, I am of my considered view that the Controller has gone wrong in recognising the justification of keeping two rooms for office purposes, in face of certain pertinent facts which are admitted as well as established on record, namely, that the property bearing No. 2-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi is a residential property situated in a residential area and the tenant who vacated this portion, namely, Ram Kumar Minda was using it for residential purposes. It is petitioner's own case in replication filed in 1983, that the said tenant had vacated this portion of three rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. about 15 years before, which means this whole portion had become vacant some time in 1968.

(34) Mr. Ahluwalia has rightly pointed out that these offices are shown to be on the ground floor just to create artificial scarcity and that even the registration certificate produced from the Shops & Establishment Department revealed that earlier the office was at 2-E, Kamla Nagar, first floor, which implies that at the time of registration of (he office was in the first floor accommodation which was with the petitioner or in the mezzanine floor, and it was only at a later point of time that these offices are shown to be on the ground floor.

(35) Mr Ahluwalia also pointed out that it is an admitted fact that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner and his sons have business accommodation available to them in Rajendra Place, New Delhi. The plea only is that those premises house another business concern of theirs, namely, M/s. Praveen International Pvt. Ltd whereas in the ground floor premises of this residential properly, the offices of two other concerns, namely, M/s, Praveen Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Indian Arms Supply Syndicate are situated.

(36) It is to be noted that all these concerns, which are located either at Rajendra Place or in the property in dispale, are family concerns of the petitioner or his sons. He has filed a list of shareholders in respect to M/s. Praveen Industries Pvt. Ltd., some of whom, according to him, are not family members, but we cannot ignore the fact that originally there were only four persons who were shareholders of this company, all living in Kamla Nagar, and bearing the same surname (Gupta) as the petitioner, and for all that we know, they could be close relations of the petitioner. The fact remains, however, that the petitioner and his family must be controlling this business concern, otherwise there is no reason for them to Keep its office in these residential rooms for such long years, and insist on retaining the offices there inspite of paucity of accommodation for residence that is being pleaded.

(37) It is thus a case where the accommodation consisting of three living rooms on the ground floor, which on reference to the site plan, I find to be the best situated rooms in the whole property, is being blocked by the petitioner, on his own volition, for use as offices, for his family concerns. It is not a case where this accommodation cannot be retrieved by him for reasons beyond his control. If he is really hard up for living accommodation for himself and members of his family dependent upon him, he has just to take a decision to shift these offices to the business premises already available to him, namely, Rajendra Place or some other premises, because on his own showing, his six sons arc prosperous businessmen, and incometax payees.

(38) Mr. Rohatgi tried to forestall a finding from this Court in this respect by contending that the Controller has recognised the need of the petitioner for office purposes, though limiting it to two rooms, and since it is only the petitioner who has come up in revision, this aspect cannot be examined by this Court.

(39) I cannot agree because it is a revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Act and this Court has to examine as to whether the Controller's order is correct according to law or not. It is certainly open to this Court to examine whether the approach which the Controller has brought to bear on the whole question, while adjudicating the plea of personal requirement, can stand scrutiny or not.

(40) This Court cannot be oblivions to the fact that the essence of the matter is bona fide requirement of the landlord, which has to be established to the satisfaction of the Controller. In view of what has been noted above, I cannot avoid reaching the conclusion that the petitioner has deliberately created a condition of paucity of accommodation by showing three rooms as being used for office purposes, which situation is perfectly within his control to retrieve, as he or his sons are in management and control of the business concerns, and he himself is the owner of this property, and be has other business accommodation at his disposal or means to acquire further accommodation. On this view alone, this revision petition must fail because these three full fledged living rooms can be at the disposal of the petitioner, and there is no extraneous factor which stands in the way and if the petitioner wants to be comfortable in his own house with his sons and their families, he has just to take a decision to shift the offices from his residence, whether they exist actually or on paper, to Rajendra Place premises or to any other place.

(41) I am constrained to say that the Court can come to the assistance of only the honest and straightforward litigants, and not persons who conceal as well as distort facts, and create artificial scarcity.

(42) It has further come to light during the hearing of this petition that petitioner is a person who has no scruples, and can resort to even falsehoods, in order to secure eviction of the tenant. It is now on record that one of the sons of the petitioner, named Pramod Kumar, has separate residence in flat No. B-542, New Friends Colony, New Delhi This is the report of the local commissioner, deputed by this Court at tenant's insistent plea that this Pramod Kumar is living separately Along with his wife and children, which came right from the stage of written statement, and which was being denied through and through by the petitioner, so much so that one of the sons of the petitioner named Prabhat Kumar, who was present in court at the time of hearing, had the temerity to deny this fact. even before this Court, when pertinently asked about it It was in this background that it was considered necessary to appoint a local commissioner to visit this property the same day and it was found by the local commissioner that Pramod Kumar's wife was there in the said flat. Information has further come that that flat, in fact, stands in the name of two minor children of Pramod Kumar. The petitioner was directed to file an additional affidavit to give particulars of the schools where his grand children were studying, and interestingly enough, the material which has been supplied in respect to the two children of Pramod Kumar, namely, Neha Gupta and Kunal Gupta, does not contain the residential addresses of the parents because only progress reports have been filed whereas in the case of other grand children proper certificates from the schools have been filed, containing the residential address of the parents of the children. This obviously is with a view to conceal from the Court, the factual position about Pramod Kumar having his residence separately in New Friends Colony, together with his wife and two children, in view of the local commissioner's report, it is established beyond doubt that the petitioner resorted to blatant lies, while denying this tact in his replication, in his statement, and even in the additional affidavit filed in this Court by asserting again and again that all his six sons were living with him, and that Pramod Kumar had no separate residence.

(43) On this ground alone the petitioner should be non-suited because the crux of the matter is that when a plea of bona fide requirement is raised, a petitioner should be able to deserve fullest confidence of the Court by his conduct. I would say that insistence in such matters should be of the standard of uberrimae fidel, utmost good faith. The petitioner in this case has regrettably betrayed utter lack of this basic ingredient.

(44) The petitioner has not stopped at only one falsehood. It is to be noted that the respondent had also alleged that the petitioner had one other accommodation at his disposal, namely, 30-B, Satyawati Colony, Delhi. The local commissioner was directed to report about this property also, and according to the local commissioner who contacted the owner/ landlord of the said property, that it was under the tenancy of the petitioner's concern M/s.Praveen International Pvt.Ltd. up to September, 1984, and during that period it was occupied either by Pramod Kumar or by the company, and only Pramod Kumar used to pay rent. The petitioner had asserted, on the other hand, occupation of this property, as only for the purpose of guest house of M/s. Praveen Internatonal. It also reported that the tenancy was voluntarily surrendered.

(45) On a cumulative appraisal of facts, the inference cannot be escaped that before Pramod Kumar shifted to B-542. New Friends Colony, New Delhi, he was having his residence in 30-B, Satyawati Colony. Delhi and it was shown as a guest house of M/s. Praveen International Pvt. Lid. as a subterfuge. Ail this Was during the pendency of the eviction petition, and the fact was being resolutely denied.

(46) The Controller has entirely gone wrong in saying that the tenant has not been able to establish his plea about petitioner's son living separately in Delhi, Bombay or Dehra Dun. This was an entirely erroneous approach because the tenant had given the particulars as best as he could, namely, the number of the properly, with telephone number's as well as names of location and city. The tenant could have no other means to establish the ownership or tenancy of these premises on the part of the patitioner. when bs was bent upon falsely denying the same. With specific particulars brought out in the written statement itself, the Controller should not have summarily dismissed allegations on the technical ground of onus of proof but ought to have taken steps to have them verified by appointing local commissioner as has now been done.

(47) The allegations about Pramod Kumar have been established, an already noted, by local commissioner's report. As regards Prakash Kumar. I find that with the additional affidavit, the petitioner has filed a list of the members and shareholders of M/s. Praveen Industries Pvs. Ltd with full names and addresses of such members or shareholders. It is pertinent to note that the address of Prakash Kumar who is admittedly one of the sons of the petitioner, is shown as 65 a. Cozy House, Pali Hill Bandra, Bombay. Interestingly the address of his other sons Pradeep Kumar and Praveen Kumar, about whom the respondent has not raised any controversy. is that of 2-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, namely the property in disputs. The respondent had given exactly the same particulars of the property, where Prakash Kumar was residing in Bombay, as noted above from the list of members and shareholders filed by the petitioner. The plea of the respondent, that this son of the petitioner is not living in Delhi, but In Bombay. is thus borne out from the said record, and this again shows that the petitioner resorted to falsehood, not only while filing the eviction petition, but persisted in it even after written statement was filed, setting outfall details.

(48) It is true that the petitioner has filed in this petition copies of the ration cards (Ex. AW2/1 and Ex AW2/2) showing that all his sons are living with him but I find from both the copies that these were issued on 1-1-1983. The eviction petition was instituted in January, 1982. Unless ration cards for the period, prior to that were filed, no notice should have been taken of those ration cards. Here again, the Controller has betrayed lack of application of mind. Same is the position in regard to the voters list Ex AW2/15, which also pertains the year 1982 issued on 22nd February, 1983 and which by itself cannot be taken as evidence of actual residence.

(49) Examining the issue as a whole and the totality of the cirumstanceas, I would come to the conclusion that the three rooms blocked as office accommodation can be available to the petitioner at his will, and if there is uny bona fide need and if all his grown up sons are really residing with him, then there is no valid reason that he would keep offices in residential premises for correspondence purposes' or receiving telex or telephone messages, as he pleads in case, he is really hard up for accommodation, then he can without any difficulty make alternative arrangement for offices, which are blocking three living rooms, and which are in fact residential rooms, because the tenant who vacated, was admittedly using them for his residence

(50) Further, in view of the finding, as now established from the local commissioner's report, and other evidence placed by the petitioner with his additional affidavit, that at least two of his married sons Along with their wives and children, namely, Pramod Kumar and Pakash Kumar are not living in 2-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, then the number of sons who could be living with him in the property under reference, namely, 2-E, Kamla Nagar. Delhi stands reduced to tour and Or this account also, the plea of insufficient accommodation ceases to be available to the petitioner. The lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner is manifest from the fact that even after obtaining vacant possession of mezzanine floor from Gulshan Kumar, tenant as already noted, for bona fide requirement for personal residence, he has allowed his daughter-in-law Veena Gupta to carry on business from that room because according to the bill of entires which the petitioner has filed Along with additional affidavit, she is operating her business of import and export since about 1984, and it around this time that the eviction order against Gulshan Kumar was passed, which is dated 6th August, 1984 This leads to the inescapable inference that petitioner's clamour for more accommodation is not borne out of genuine need but motivated by desire to evict the tenant.

(51) It goes without saying that the Court in such matters has to take a balanced view, and come to the assistance of a needy landlord and not who indulges in luxury of expanding his business or blocking three good living rooms for office purposes-the explanation that be receives telex messages at odd hours, being in export business, is wholly unconvincing, and he has also allowed his daughter-in-law to start new business in the premises vacated by another tenant pursuant to an eviction order. It is obviously a case of self inflicted deprivation, without any extraneous factors being involved, such as properly being in possession of another person or tenant. from whom, it may not be possible to readily gel vacant possession. For all practical purposes these three rooms on the ground floor are to be taken to be in possession and control of the petitioner, which can be used for residence at his volition, and there are no external constraints in his way.

(52) This is a case where the observations of the Supreme Court in case : , Amarjit Singh v. Smt. Khatoon Quama rain, can be appositely applied That was a case where the landlady filed eviction petition against her tenant in the first floor premises, after repeatedly letting out ground floor premises on the pica that she needed rental income for her living and thus she was justified in renting out the ground floor premises, and ask for eviction of the first floor tenant The Court dismissing this pica, observed as follows :

"THE logic of the argument of Shri Kacher is attractive, but the legality of the said submission is unsustainable Rent restriction laws are both beneficial and restrietive, beneficial for these who want protection from eviction and rack resting but restrictive so far as the landlord's right or claim for eviction is concerned. Tanning lndustrie, kanpur, .

This adds yet another Rent restriction laws would provide a habitat for the landlord or landlady if need be, but not to seek comforts other than habitat that right the landlord must seek elsewhere." .

(53) I further find support for the view I am taking from the following observations of another judgment of the Supreme Court , Sushila Devi and others v. Avinash Chandra Jain and others :

"......UNLESS there is compelling necessity, there can be no order for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The provision contained in Section 14(1)e) is meant to subserve a public interest and to strike a just balance between the competing needs of the landlord and the tenant it is axiomatic that when a landlord applies for eviction of a tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, there is a duty cast on the court to consider the question on merits on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. Again, there has to be in such cases an objective determination of the claim of the landlord. It is necessary to emphasise that unlike Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 where the High Court's power of interference in revision touches jurisdiction, the power of the High Court to interfere in revision under Sub section (8) of Section 25-B of the Act is much wider in scope and enables the High Court to satisfy itself as to whether the decision rendered by the Rent Controller on the facts in issue is in accordance with law, that is to say, in accordance with the well settled principles"

(54) For all the facts noted above, and findings recorded, with eleven living rooms, available to the petitioner, besides two mezzanine floor rooms and other accommodation comprised of kitchens, store and bath rooms, and two of his married sons now found to be not residing in this property, it certainly is a case where the petitioner has failed to establish a case of bona fide requirement for the tenancy premises, in occupation of the respondent. No case at all has, thus, been made out on record of this case for interference in the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing the eviction petition of the petitioner. The revision petition is accordingly dies missed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000.00.