Roshan Lal vs Kuldip Raj
1991 Latest Caselaw 593 Del

JUDGMENT

Kuldip Raj, J.

(1) [ED. facts : Petitioner is living at Udaipur and doing business there with his sons. His wife had cancer in 1978 and was treated at Aiims up to 1985. He is suffering from heart disease and his doctor advised him for specialized treatment at AIIMS. He sued respondent for eviction u/S 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act). After trial Additional R.C. held that he was owner-landlord, letting was for residence and that he had no accommodation at Delhi. But his petition was dismissed on the ground that he had not proved bonafide need. He filed revision in High Court]. After detailing above, judgment is:

(2) Aggrieved, this revision has been filed by the petitioner. Arguments advanced before me is only with respect to the finding of the Addl. R.C. that the petitioner has failed to prove the bonafide requirement. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no doubt, the petitioner along with his family members is residing at Udaipur and doing business there, but at Udaipur adequate medical facilities are not available for him and for his wife. Mere fact that the business of the petitioner is at Udaipur does not disentitle the petitioner and his wife to settle at Delhi in his own house for ensuring special medical attention. According to the learned counsel, the Additional R.C. not only misread the evidence but also misinterpreted it. The petitioner wants to shift to Delhi along with his wife and except the premises in dispute he has no other suitable residential accommodation at Delhi. He drew my attention towards the statement of the petitioner who appeared as Aw 1, particularly towards the portion, wherein he has stated that the premises are required for him and his wife for residence at Delhi. He also drew my attention towards the statement of Dr. Survir Singh of Udaipur whose statement was recorded on commission as Cw 1. He has proved the certificate Ex. Cw 1/1 and Cw 1/2 issued by him. Dr. Survir Singh has deposed that the petitioner is under his treatment since 1965 and is suffering from ischaemic heart disease and was kept in the hospital for three weeks. He has suffered many attacks of angina which can result in massive attack or some serious life threatening complications. He has been advised coronary bypass surgery at Aiims, New Delhi. This facility is not available .at Udaipur. According to the counsel for petitioner, statement of petitioner coupled with the statement of Dr. Survir Singh and other documentary evidence from the Aiims produced by the petitioner, establish that the petitioner and his wife require medical treatment which is available at Delhi only and that they bonafide require the premises for their residence as they want to settle at Delhi on health grounds.

(3) Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on a decision of the single Judge of this court in Virender Paul vs. Daljit Singh 1978 (1) R.C.J. 365 in support of his contention that Section 14(1)(e) of Act does not entitle the court to pass an order of eviction against the tenant where the landlord needs a house temporarily. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner and his wife are leading normal life and are permanently settled at Udaipur carrying on business there. The wife of the petitioner was operated upon in 1978 in Aiims but the petitioner is settled at Udaipur and is carrying on business since 1966 which consists of business of petrol pump, kerosene oil. It is admitted that all his sons are carrying on business there and they have no business in Delhi. There is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner along with his wife wants to shift to Delhi. They are suffering from any ailment which require special treatment at Delhi. No doctor from A1IMS has been examined by the petitioner to support his contention. Only some technicians have been examined to prove the Opd tickets Ex. Aw 3/2-4. Even according to the Opd tickets it is not established that wife of the petitioner has been advised to stay in Delhi. Rather nothing abnormal was detected after her operation of breast. These documents show that she visited Aiims up to 1985 and nothing abnormal was detected. From the evidence produced by the petitioner, it is not at all established that he required the tenanted premises bonafide for his residence and of his family members dependant upon him.

(4) The word "bona fide" as used in proviso (e) to S. 14(1) has been considered judicially in a number of decisions and this interpretation is no longer in controvery. It means, genuinely or in good faith, and it conveys an idea of absence of intent to deceive. If the owner- landlord is not considered to be seeking eviction on false pretext of acquiring additional accommodation with some collateral purpose or oblique motive and his requirement cannot be considered to be inspired by pure fanciful whim the plea of bonafide requirement put forth by the landlord owner deserves ordinarily to be upheld. As a broad workable rule the landlord must be left to assess his requirements in the back ground of his position, circumstances, status in life and special and other responsibilities and other relevant factors. While considering the question of ejectment on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord, it is eminently desirable to strike a proper and just balance between the rights of the owner on the one hand and those of the tenant as protected by the law on the other. The owner is entitled to make himself comfortable and is normally speaking, the best judge of his own requirement. Unless he can be considered to be abusing or misusing this right to acquire possession of his property in eviction proceedings, which means that he is seeking to get possession under the veil of bonafide requirement, but for some other purpose, his claim demands acceptance of course, in some rare case when his claim prima facie appears to be wholly unreasonable, when considered in the background of his status, position and other family circumstances the controller or the tribunal may be persuaded judicially to negative his bonafides. This is the law which is being followed since long.

(5) In this case, the petitioner has succeeded in proving that his wife was operated upon in the AI1MS, New Delhi for removal of breast cancer. It is also on record that she came to Delhi for check-up up to 1986. It is common knowledge that cancer is incurable disease. A patient suffering from such a fatal disease has to be on guard. She had to come to Delhi for getting herself checked up several times in 1985 and it does not seem to reason as to how her genuine need for selling in Delhi has been turned down by the Additional R.C. when the Additional R.C. has admitted in his judgment that she was operated for breast cancer and she came to Delhi several times up to 1985. Mere fact that nothing abnormal was detected does not mean that she has been cured of the disease.

(6) Regarding the illness of the petitioner himself, besides his own statement, which remained unshattered, the statement of Dr. Survir Singh of Udaipur in whose treatment the petitioner ha.s been since long, prove that the petitioner has been suffering from ischaemic heart disease and was kept in the hospital for three weeks. He has suffered many attacks of angina which can result in massive attack or some serious life threatening complications. He has been advised coronary bypass surgery, at Aiims New Delhi. This facility is not available at Udaipur. This part of the evidence led by the petitioner has not been rebutted.

(7) In the statement of the petitioner, who appeared as Aw 1, it has specifically come that he needs the house for himself and for his wife for residence at Delhi and this version of the petitioner has not been rebutted or shattered. The mere fact that he has got petrol pump and kerosene oil business at Udaipur and is residing there with his two sons and wife, does not mean that the petitioner and his wife cannot shift to Delhi for their treatment. It is not required from the petitioner to show and prove that he has some planning to do business at Delhi or that he wants to lead retired life at Delhi. It is more than sufficient for him to show that he needs house for his residence. His statement is corroborated by oral as well as documentary evidence. The decision of this court in Virender Paul (supra) does not help the respondent in the present circumstances of the case. In that case the landlord did not come in witness box to prove his bonafide requirement but on his behalf his attorney had made a statement and as such the court drew adverse inference against him and dismissed the eviction petition filed by him. In the present case, the petitioner has himself appeared as a witness (AW1) in support of his contention that he needs the tenanted premises for his residence & of his wife at Delhi. He has deposed on oath that he is residing at Udaipur where he has his business. He has two sons. At Delhi he has no other house except the suit premises and he is a heart patient and he has been advised bypass surgery at Aiims, New Delhi. His wife has cancer in the breast and she was operated upon in 1978.

(8) The petitioner has to come to Delhi off and on and he needs the house for his residence and for the residence of his wife at Delhi. This version given by the petitioner in his statement on oath has not been shattered in the cross- examination. Rather this version finds corroboration from the statement of Dr. Survir Singh.

(9) The Additional R.C. has misread the evidence produced by the petitioner to establish his bonafide requirement. Mere fact that the business of the petitioner is at Udaipur does not disentitle the petitioner from setting at Delhi for ensuring specialised medical attention. His business is being looked after by his sons there. Under these circumstances, I set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Additional R.C. dated 17.10.90, accept this revision petition and pass a decree for eviction, with respect to the suit premises as described in the plan, u/S. 14(1)(e) r.w.S. 25B of the Act. However, this order shall not be executable for 6 months from today. The parties are left to bear their own costs.