Tara Chand Saini vs Sundar Singh
1993 Latest Caselaw 271 Del

JUDGMENT

P.N. Nag, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10th October 1989 passed by Shri R.K. Sharma, Additional Rent Controller Delhi whereby he has dismissed the petitioner landlord's petition for bonafide requirement filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The facts as set out in the petition are that the petitioner is the owner of bearing No. B-64, C.C. Colony, Delhi-110007 and his family consists of himself, his wife and the daughter and they are living on first floor which accommodation is insufficient for them. Therefore, the petitioner wants additional accommodation of ground floor which is under the tenancy of the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 215/- and the tenancy is for residential purpose only. The tenanted portion of the ground floor consists of two rooms, kitchen-cum-store, bath-cum-W.C. and common courtyard. It has further been stated in the petition that the petitioner is employed as a Head Clerk with the Delhi Administration and in due course he is to retire and he would like his only daughter and his would be son-in-law to reside with them with a view to looking after them in their old age. The daughter of the petitioner has been engaged and, she is to be married soon and because of paucity of accommodation her marriage is being postponed. Further, the wife of the petitioner is suffering from Coronary Arterial Disease and has been advised not to exert and climb upstairs.

3. In the written statement, the stand taken by the respondent-tenant is that the petitioner does not require the premises, which is in occupation of the respondent as a residence for himself and for the members of his family dependent upon him. The ailment of the wife of the petitioner is also denied. The stand taken by the respondent tenant is that a false story has been made out by the petitioner, that after the marriage of his only daughter, his daughter and son-in-law will come and reside with the petitioner, with a view to seek his eviction from the premises in dispute.

4. The trial court has dismissed the petition primarily on the ground that the petitioner is in occupation of three rooms, kitchen, toilet and verandah and balcony and open space on the first floor which is sufficient for the petitioner and his family consisting of his wife, daughter, son-in-law and one grand daughter and that the petitioner is simply a Head Clerk in Delhi Administration and is not used to live a luxurious life which he. cannot afford. The petitioner does not enjoy a high status in the society and, therefore, it cannot be said that he is in need of more accommodation on the ground floor which is in occupation of the respondent-tenant.

5. During the pendency of the revision petition, an application, being CM 2888/91, for placing certain subsequent events on record by affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner in which it has been stated that after the filing of the petition, the number of family members of the family have increased. At the time of filing of the petition in 1980, the petitioner's family consisted of himself, his wife and his only daughter and after the daughter's marriage, The Along with her husband is also living with the petitioner. It has further been stated in the application that the petitioner's daughter has given birth to three children, namely, (i) Miss Ekta, (ii) Master Ankit and (iii) Master Tarun who were aged 10 years, 8 years and 6 years respectively on the date of filing of the application and are studying in school in Delhi. The number of family members has now increased to seven whereas the accommodation available with the petitioner on the first floor is hardly sufficient for them. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner who was working as Inspector of Legal Metrology in Delhi Administration managed to get Government accommodation and as such shifted in Government accommodation. He was due to retire from service on 31.3.1992 with the result he had to vacate the Government accommodation and shift back to his own house and the accommodation on the first floor which is in petitioner's occupation is hardly sufficient for the petitioner and members of his family. It has also been stated in the application that the ailment of the wife of the petitioner is still continuing.

6. Notice of this application (CM 2888/91) was given to the respondent-tenant who has filed a reply and denied that the petitioner's daughter and his son in law as well as their children are living with the petitioner. Rather, according to him, the petitioner was living in Government accommodation. According to the respondent-tenant the petitioner is living in the same accommodation and has never shifted The accommodation of first floor in occupation of the petitioner is sufficient to meet his requirement and the application deserves to be dismissed.

7. In rejoinder to the CM the petitioner has denied the averments made by the respondent and has tried to substantiate that the petitioner's daughter, her husband and their children are living with the petitioner in the same premises and the present accommodation available with the petitioner is insufficient to meet his requirement and, therefore, he needs more accommodation on the ground floor which is in occupation of the respondent-tenant.

8. It may be stated here that though the matter is part-heard and is on the daily board for the last few days, none has chosen to put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and since it is an old matter of 1986 it cannot be adjourned indefinitely and, therefore, I have proceeded to deal with the same on merits.

9. It is settled principle of law that in case of bonafide requirements, the Courts are entitled to take into account subsequent events to mould the relief in appropriate cases in the interest of Justice.

10. I have considered the subsequent events placed by the petitioner on records vide C.M. No. 2888/91 as well as respondent's reply and petitioner's rejoinder thereto. I have also perused the documents filed by the petitioner along with the rejoinder. I am satisfied that the petitioner's wife, daughter, her husband and their three children are residing with the petitioner in the same premises on first floor which is available with the petitioner. In other words, the petitioner's family consisting of seven members are living on first floor. It goes without saying that the children are school-going and they must be requiring some rooms for study. Even otherwise for the growing up children need for additional accommodation has been held to be bonafide. In this connection the judgment in Smt. Rajwanti Devi and Anr. v. Amar Singh (1987-2 RCR 564) may be referred to.

11. It may also be noticed that the petitioner has only daughter and since he has retired from service, undoubtedly he requires her in the old age for looking after him and his wife. I am, therefore, of opinion that the need of the petitioner for additional accommodation on the ground floor is genuine and bonafide and the landlord is entitled to evict the tenant. In this context, the judgment in Krishna Devi v. Panneshwari Devi (1977 RCR 479) may be looked into.

12. Even otherwise C.M. Nayyar, J. in Smt. Sheela Sapra and Anr. v. New India Electrical Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. in the light of judgment in Smt. Darshan Garg v. Sri Kishan Das (1988-2 RCR 591) has held that the need of married daughter, who in our society invariably visits the parents, cannot be ignored.

13. It is not necessary to go into the question of ailment of the petitioner's wife having regard to the fact that the petitioner's family now consisting of seven persons certainly needs additional accommodation as the present accommodation available on first floor with them comprising of 3 rooms is insufficient. His need for additional accommodation cannot be termed as unreasonable and has to be considered as bonafide.

14. There is, therefore, every justification for the eviction of the respondent-tenant.

15. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment/order is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. The respondent-tenant is ordered to be evicted from the premises in dispute. There will be no order as to costs.