Ram Lal vs Bharat Singh
1992 Latest Caselaw 281 Del

JUDGMENT

S.C. Jain, J.

(1) The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that Bharat Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein filed a petition seeking eviction of Ram Lal predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein from premises No.91A/UB, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi, on the ground of bonafide requiremt pleading, inter alia, that he is the owner and landlord of the premises in suit, which were let out for residential purpose and the same are required bonafide by him for occupation as residence for himself and for the members of his family dependent upon him, particularly for his son Vishan Dass who is employed in Desu at Kamla Nagar, being dependent upon him and that the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation. Both the courts below i.e.Addl Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal came to a concurrent Finding of fact that the premises were let out for residential purpose by Bharat Singh as its owner-landlord and need of the landlord is genuine and that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in Delhi.

(2) The eviction order was passed by the Addl Rent Controller on 11.8.1976 which was confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 23.2.1979. It is this order of the Rent Control Tribunal which has been challenged in this second appeal before this Court.

(3) The only point pressed before me by the learned counsel for.the appeallants is that Bharat Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was in possession of a big house in village Dhaka, Dhirpur, Delhi, where he was residing with his sons and other family members. In the eviction petition need was alleged to be that of his son Vishan Dass who was employed in Desu at Kamla Nagar. On the contrary, the respondents got possession of room vacated by Udey Bhan, Mohan Lal and Bodh Raj during the pendency of the eviction petition, counsel submitted.

(4) The finding of the Rent Control Tribunal that the said accommodation was used by Ram Narain is erroneous and against the pleadings. Shri Ram Narain had his own house. The counsel for the appellant also drew my attention to subsequent events which allegedly took place after the passing of the eviction order. According to him D.C.Gupta, a tenant in the dispute property 91- A, Jawahar Nagar had vacated one large room in his tenancy on or after 9.5.79. Ram Parkash another tenant had vacated one room by the order of the Supreme Court on 27.2.1981; Laxami Naraln Master also vacated one room on 9.12.1981, Kanshi Ram Gupta had vacated one room and kitchen after 31.7.83, Chail Behrai had vacated one room and verandah in 1986. All this accommodation, therefore, became available to the respondents after passing of the eviction order and this accommodation is in possession of the respondents satisfying their need if any. Counsel also pointed out that Bodh Raj Chawla had vacated one roo;n wherein factory was installed by one of the respondents which was closed in 1982-83 making this room also available to the respondents for residence. According to the counsel the need for accommodation was only for Vishan Dass and this need stands satisfied after getting the possession of so much accommodation. Bharat Singh never lived in the suit premises. Neither he nor his sons who were residing in village Dhirpur Dhaka were interested to reside in the house in dispute because they had more than sufficient accommodation at Dhirpur.

(5) According to the counsel it is well settled law that in case of bonafide need subsequent events must be taken into account if they are relevant on the question of release or possession of the premises in question.

(6) As far as the question of taking into account the subsequent event is concerned, it is settled law as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Hasmat Rai vs Raghunath Prasad : where possession is sought for personal requirement it would be correct to say that the requirement pleaded by the landlord mast not only exist on the dale of the action but must subsist till the final decree or an order for eviction is made. If in the meantime events have cropped up which would show that the landlord's requirement is wholly satisfied then in that case his action mast fail and in such a situation it is incorrect to say that as decree or order for eviction is passed against the tenant he cannot invite the court to take into consideration subsequent events. Once an appeal against decree or order of eviction is preferred, the appeal being a continuation of suit, the landlord's need must be shown to continue to exist at appellate stage. If the tenant is in a position to show that the need or requirement no more exists because of the subsequent events, it would be open to him to point out such events and the Court including the appellate court has to examine, evaluate and adjudicate the same.

(7) Now coming to the factual position it is to be seen, whether the accommodation which is available at present with the respondents landlords is sufficient for them and for their family members dependent upon them for the purpose of residence. In this regard, both the courts below have come to a concurrent finding of fact that Bharat Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was having seven sons, out of whom five were married and that he was having three married daughters at the time of filing of the eviction petition. It is pointed out to me that Bharat Singh, deceased,. has left behind Smt Khazano Devi, his wife, three daughters and seven sons i.e. (1) Ram Narain, having wife, 2 sons 7 daughters, one daughter-in-law and three grandsons; (2) Champat Rai, having his wife, two sons, four daughters, one grandson, one granddaughter and one daughter in law; (3) Ram Niwas having wife, two sons and one daughter; (4) Sat Parkash having wife, three sons and two daughters; (5) Vishan Dass having wife, two sons and a daughter (6) Manohar Lal having his wife, and two sons and (7) Rajinder having wife, one son and two daughters. The total number of family members of Bharat Singh comes to 59 in all.

(8) The residential accommodation available with them are house No.130 village Dhakka and another house 91A-UB, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi which is tenanted house. There are four living rooms in village Dhakka where Bharat Singh deceased along with his other family members was residing at the time of his death.The property in dispute at 91A-UB Jawahar Nagar consists of five rooms on the ground floor, four kitchens, one garage and a mezzanine floor above the garage and one bathroom and mezzanine above it. The upper floor consists of five rooms and four kitchens, bath room and latrine. On the top floor there is one room and mumty. Due to paucity of space and large size of the family of the respondents the space vacated by various tenants has been utilised by the family members of the respondents for residential purpose and and the same was never let out to any one after getting the possession of the rooms from the tenants. Whatever additional accommodation became available the same is being utilised by the landlords and their family members. No new tenant has been inducted. The family of the respondents has grown up and they are in need of much more accommodation for comfortable living. The additional accommodation which became available was during the period 1977 to 1983 which has been used by the respondents and their family members and has not been relet. There are no malafides in seeking eviction of the appellants from the tenanted premises for comfortable living of the family members of the respondents. According to learned counsel for the respondents Bharat Singh deceased left a will according to which the entire accommodation available has been given to various family members. Ram Niwas, son of Bharat Singh (deceased) respondent has not been given any residential portion by virtue of the will and his need has also not been taken into account. According to him he has his own house, E 22 Multan Nagar, Rohtak Road and he has not been given any share in the disputed house or in the other residential house at village Dhaka.. If his need and the need of his family members is excluded, it means that out of 59 members eight members of the family of Ram Niwas including him goes away and 51 members still remain who require the suit premises for their residence and for the residence of their family members and ihe accommodation now available is not sufficient for their residence. The contention of the counsel for the appellants that at the time of tiling of the eviction petition only the need of one of the sons of Bharat Singh namely, Vishan Dass was mentioned and, therefore, the need of other family members of Bharat Singh cannot be taken into account, is not tenable in view of the pleadings and evidence which has come on record.

(9) In para 18(a) of the eviction petition it has been specifically mentioned that Bharat Singh is owner of the house in question and the premises were lei out to Ram Lal, predecessor-ill-interest of the appellants for residential purpose and the same is required bonafide by Bharat Singh for residence for himself and members of his family dependent upon. him more particularly for his son Vishan Dass, who is employed in Desu being dependent upon him and that Bharat Singh has no other suitable accommodation with him.

(10) Evidence has also been led to the effect that it is the need of Bharat Singh and other family members dependent upon him for the purpose of residence for whom the suit premises are required. From the evidence on record it cannot be construed that need is only of Vishan Dass. We have to see the need of family members of Bharat Singh as a whole, who are dependent upon him for the purpose of residence.The need of Ram Niwas one of the sons of Bharat Singh deceased and his family members ( 8 in all) has to be excluded because he has a separate house. 51 members of the 642 respondents 'families need accommodation for their residence and they have only two residential houses, one in village Dhakka and the other the disputed property in Jawahar Nagar. Even taking into consideration the subsequent events that is the availability of additional accommodation which became available after passing of the eviction order it cannot be said to be sufficient for residence of the family members of the respondents. There is nothing on record eve to indicate and it is also not alleged by the appellants that Bharat Singh or the present respondents have let out any portion of the accommodation available with them to any other person on higher rent after the said portion became available to them. There is no indication of any malafide on their part. The law does not expect the landlord to sacrifice his comforts and live a crowded life in his own house when he can have better comforts. The landlord cannot be asked to put up with the limited accommodation and huddle his sons and daughters together. It is settled law that while considering the question of ejectment on the ground of bonafide requirement it is desirable to strike a proper and just balance between the right of the owner and those of the tenant as protected by the law on the other. The owner is entitled to make himself comfortable and he is the best judge of his own requirement. Unless he can be considered to be misusing his right to acquire the property in the eviction petition which means that he is seeking possession under the veil of bonafide requirement but for some other purpose, his claim demands acceptance. If the owner landlord is not considered to be seeking eviction on the false pretext of acquiring additional accommodation with some collateral purpose or oblique motive and his requirement cannot be considered to be inspired purely by fanciful whim, the plea of the landlord deserves ordinarily to be upheld. As a broad workable rule, landlord must be left to assess his own requirement in the background of his position, circumstances, status in life, special and other responsibilities and other relevant factors. The plea of the appellants that Bharat Singh predecessor-in- interest of the respondents was living along with other sons in village Dhakka and no more accommodation is required by the respondents is not tenable in the present circumstances of the case. A landlord can very well plan as to how he and his family can lead more comfortable life in his own house. The married daughters are supposed to be visiting their parents in Hindu Society and for them some accommodation is also needed. A owner of modest means is not supposed to huddle his family in a small space. He can legitimately ask for more space for comfortable living.

(11) Keeping in view the concurrent findings of fact of both the courts below and the subsequent events, I do not find any ground to interfere in this second appeal and the same is dismissed.