Madan Lal Gaind vs Rabinder Nath Chandhioke
1996 Latest Caselaw 119 Del

JUDGMENT

C.M. Nayar, J.

(1) The present petition is filed against the order dated December 1, 1990 passed by Shri L.D.Malik, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The learned judge accepted the petition for eviction filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and granted six months time to vacate the demised premises to the petitioner. Respondent is the owner of the premises known as G-9B, Kalkaji, which were purchased by him from Smt. Meenu Wadhwani through her attorney Shri Ambrat L.Wadhwani vide sale deed dated October 13, 1978; that the petitioner was an old tenant and in occupation of the premises when the same was purchased by the respondent. The family of the respondent consists of himself, his wife and his son and it was alleged that they were residing in servant quarter above the garage comprising of one room, bath room, W.C. in property No. C-395, defense Colony, New Delhi owned by his elder brother Shri S.N.Chandhiok as a licencee; the father of the respondent was residing on the ground floor of the said property whereas the elder brother was alleged to be occupying the first floor and Barsati floor. The respondent was living in the servant quarter uncomfortably and filed the petition for eviction in respect of the tenancy premises in that background. He has stated that he was an Assistant in the Ministry of Planning and has since retired in the year 1991. The petitioner filed written statement wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. It was, however, denied that the suit premises were residential. They were alleged to be let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes and were being used for the said purpose since the inception of the tenancy. According to the petitioner he is a property dealer/consultant by profession and doing his property dealer business in the property and also used the same for the purpose of his residence. He further stated that one Shri Gomi Bai was owner of the property and after her death all heirs have become owners of the property and respondent was only collecting the rent on behalf of owners and not as owner of the suit premises. The respondent denied these averments and reiterated that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in Delhi other than the suit property and he was residing in the property at C-395, defense Colony, New Delhi as a licencee in the servant quarter and, as such, was entitled to live in his own property. The Additional Rent Controller considered the ingredients which are required to prove that (a) the respondent was owner/landlord of the suit premises (b) the premises in question were let out for residential purposes (c) the respondent required the premises bonafide for occupation as residence for himself and for members of his family dependent upon him and (d) he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation available to him.

(2) The evidence on record was appraised by the Rent Controller as well as pleadings of the parties with regard to the ownership of the suit property. The court took into consideration the fact that the perusal of the sale deed EX.A.1 specifically showed that Smt.Goma Bai left behind her only daughter Smt. Meenu Wadhwani and made a Will in respect of property which was got probated in the name of her daughter who had already been substituted in the records of Land and Development office. In this background it was held that Smt. Meenu Wadhwani had been permitted to sell the house by L&DO and the property was, accordingly, sold to the respondent who was, therefore, held owner by virtue of the sale deed executed in this regard.

(3) At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not seriously impugned the finding that the respondent was owner of the property. On the contrary, it was stated that the deal was brought about by the petitioner himself. This finding, therefore, does not require any interference and the same is affirmed.

(4) The learned counsel next contended that the petitioner had been conducting his business of property agency from the tenancy premises and the same were let out to him for residential-cum- commercial purposes. It is stated that the petitioner has been doing this business since the inception of the tenancy and is also using the premises as residence. Again, the Rent Controller considered the documentary as well as oral evidence in support of the plea that the premises were being used at all times for residential purposes though it was possible that the petitioner might have some dealing with regard to the professional work from the premises. The learned judge specifically took into account the fact that it could not be disputed that the business of a property dealer could be carried on from one's house without a regular office. The premises were situated in the residential area and the property was allotted for residential purpose to rehabilitate people who were migrants from Pakistan. The Controller then referred to the rent receipts for the period 1959 onwards where he found no specific mention that the letting purpose was residence as well as office. The receipts on the contrary indicated that the rent was paid in respect of the property indicating a clear intention on the part of the parties that they were let out for residential purposes. The subsequent plea of the petitioner that he was doing the business of contractor or some other business from the premises was also held to be an after thought and as a consequence rejected. The findings are based on appreciation of evidence which do not call for interference in exercise of revisional powers of this Court. The premises are, accordingly, held to be let out for residential purposes as pleaded by the respondent/landlord.

(5) The last point which is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent does not require the premises bona fide for his own need as well as for the need of his family. It is argued that the respondent is comfortably placed in the house of his brother along with his wife and son and he is already in occupation of one room of the annexe of the said house at C-395, defense Colony, New Delhi. It is further submitted that the brother of the respondent has taken no steps to evict the respondent from the above premises. Therefore, the need cannot be held to be bona fide. The respondent, on the other hand, has reiterated that neither he is the co-owner of the premises at defense Colony nor he has any interest in the same whatsoever. He produced his own brother who deposed that he was owner of the house on the basis of sale deed, the certified copy of the same though not exhibited in the absence of the original sale deed clearly indicated that the said S.N.Chandhiok was owner of the house No.C- 395, defense Colony, New Delhi on that basis. In this background the Controller held that respondent had no interest in the house at C-395, defense Colony and he was held not to be the owner in respect of the same. The certified copy of the sale deed of the house clearly indicated that Shri S.N.Chandhiok was the vendee of the property and there was no manner of doubt that it was not joint family property with which the respondent was even remotely connected. Therefore, in view of cogent and reliable evidence placed on record, I find no material irregularity in the findings of the Rent Controller that the property in defense Colony was not a joint family property and was, in fact, owned by brother of the respondent.

(6) The question now arises whether the respondent can be held to be in possession of reasonably suitable residential accommodation available to him. There is no denial of the fact on the basis of the averments and the. evidence on record that the respondent is living in a small premises in the annexe of his brother's house for so many years. It is the natural wish of the respondent to move back to his own premises, particularly, when he has retired from Government job about 5 years back so that there is some semblance of comfortable living. The bona fide need of the landlord cannot be judged from the view of the tenant though the premises of current residence may not be comfortable. 'The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own' (Smt. Prativa Devi v. T.V.Krishnan 1987(12) D.RJ. 258). For the aforesaid reasons, it is held that the requirement was nothing but bona fide. I find no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.