Shyam Lal vs Murari Lal
1996 Latest Caselaw 62 Del

JUDGMENT

C.M. Nayar, J.

(1) The present petition is directed against the order dated May 1, 1986 passed by Shri G.D.Dhanuka, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

(2) The brief facts are that respondent is the owner/landlord of House No.1111, Kucha Harjas Mal, Mohalla Lali, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. Shyam Lal, who is since deceased and is now represented by his legal heirs was a tenant under him in respect of one room with common verandah on the first floor of the house, as indicated in the site plan Exhibit A.I at Rs.25.00 per month since February 7, 1967 vide written rent agreement. The premises were let out to the said Shyam Lal for residential purposes only. The respondent/landlord filed the petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground that he required the premises bonafide for his personal use and occupation and that he did not have any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The family of Shyam Lal consisted of himself, his wife, three sons, two of them were married at the time of filing the eviction petition and it is contended that the third son has also got married during the pendency of the proceedings and four married daughters.

(3) The petitioner Shyam Lal was granted leave to defend and he contested the petition on various grounds, such as, that the respondent was only one of the cotenants, that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes,' that the premises were not let out on 7th February, 1967, as alleged, the respondent was not the owner of the premises etc. etc. The learned Additional Rent Controller considered the respective contentions of the parties and held as follows:

A.The respondent was the owner of the premises in dispute;

B.The premises were let out only for residential purposes and were used as such;

C.The bonafide necessity was proved primarily in view of the fact that on the basis of number of family members of the respondent and the accommodation available to him it was quite apparent that the respondent was short of accommodation and his necessity was genuine;

D.The respondent did not have any other residential accommodation for his use and for the use of his family members. The decree of eviction, accordingly, was passed by the court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

(4) The petitioner Shyam Lal, who was the tenant of the premises and was residing there with his family members, filed the present petition in this Court which was dismissed in limine on November 27, 1986. The Special Leave petition was filed in the Supreme Court which was granted and the following order was passed by that Court on November 23,1987:

-LEAVEgranted.

ALTER hearing learned counsel for both the parties, we think it just and fair to set aside the order of the High Court and request the High Court to admit the revision petition for hearing and dispose it of on merits. There shall be stay of dispossession till the matter is finally disposed of by the High Court. The High Court is requested to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. There will be no order as to costs."

(5) The respondent Filed Civil Misc. Petition No.874/90 in this Court giving accurate details of the present status of the family. The application was allowed on February 27, 1991. The following paragraphs may be reproduced as follows:

"9.That the respondent has three married sons, who are 45 years, 40 years and 35 years of age respectively.

(10) That the respondent has four married daughters who occasionally visit the respondent and sometime also stay with him. All the married daughters have sons and daughters, who also come along with their parents to the house of respondent.

(11) That the eldest son of the respondent has two sons who are about 20 years and 16 years of age and he has two daughters, who are 22 years and 14 years of age. (12) That the second son of the respondent has three sons, who are of 9 years, 6 years and 4 years of ages. The youngest son of the respondent has four daughters, who are around 7 years, 4 years, 2 years and I year old. "

(6) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the bonafide requirement of the respondent has not been proved. He has referred to the additional affidavit, which was Filed on 26th November, 1986 reiterating that the respondent is having sufficient accommodation and that he let out one room and one gallery in the disputed premises to one Banwari Lal during the pendency of the petition under Section 14(l)(e) before the Additional Rent Controller. The said Banwari Lal vacated the said room which has now come in possession of one Mahesh who is still residing there. It is further stated that the daughter of the respondent has since vacated three rooms and taking into consideration these facts, the respondent has got sufficient accommodation to meet his requirement. Further affidavit has been filed in the Court today giving more details of the accommodation available to the respondent and his family. It is submitted that the disputed premises has got seven rooms, three kitchens on ground floor and similar set of accommodation on the first-floor. The factum of releting one room to one Shri Mahesh is once again reiterated and it is high- lighted that the requirement of the respondent is not at all bonafide. It is contended that the subsequent events can be taken into consideration if they are relevant and material. Where the landlord has let out the accommodation on higher rent during the pendency of the proceedings he will be disentitled to the right of eviction. Strong reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in Shri Amarjit Singh v. Smt. Khatoon Quamarain Jt 1986 S.C. 912. Reference is made to paragraph 21 which reads as follows: "21.Shri Kacker submitted that this section should be read literally and we should ask ourselves the question today whether can it be said that the landlady had reasonably suitable other accommodation. We are unable to read it in that sense. If the landlady or the landlord could have reasonable accommodation after his or her need arose and she by her own conduct disentitled herself to that property by letting it out for higher income, she would be disentitled to evict her tenant on ground of her need. The philosophy and principle of rent restriction law have nothing to do with. the private exploitation of property by the owners of the property in derogation or the tenant's need of protection from eviction in a society of shortage of accommodation."

(7) The facts which are now alleged by the petitioners are not duly proved in accordance with law. Similarly can be stated about the averments made by the respondent in answer to these additional facts. It is, however, not in doubt that the respondent/landlord has a large family, such as, three married sons, four married daughters and number of grand children. There is no denial to these averments. The vacation of part of the premises by one daughter may not be very relevant in view of the fact that requirement of married daughters, who may not be members of landlord's family can be taken into account in assessing the requirement of the landlord himself to some extent. Some additional accommodation is certainly required on this count. The letting of one room, which is explained by learned counsel for the respondent, is also of no consequence as it is being used by the sister's son of the respondent. These facts do not determine the ultimate requirement of the respondent as there is no denial that the family of the landlord is composed of large numbers and they belong to middle class strata of the society as the same can be said about the family of the petitioners. The size has grown up over the years and the accommodation available with them cannot be said to be adequate in the facts of the present case. These conclusions have been arrived at by the Additional Rent Controller after granting the right to contest to the petitioners and after full appraisal of evidence' and cannot be lightly interfered with. In order to do complete justice between the parties, I have also examined the affidavits filed before this Court making allegations and counter allegations. There is, however, no denial on the part of the petitioners with regard to the size of the family of the respondent/landlord. In this background, it will not be open for this Court to reappraise and reconsider the matter as no manifest injustice has been caused and there is no error of law. The question of bonafide requirement is always determined on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record and the court is certainly at liberty to take into consideration any subsequent events. The Additional Rent Controller in the present case has rightly found the accommodation to be inadequate and the additional facts which have been brought to my notice will not, in any manner, lead to alter this conclusion. The revisional powers of this court cannot be exercised where the landlord has established his bonafide requirement.

(8) For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition fails and is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, the petitioners-are granted additional time till 31st July, 1996 to vacate the tenanted premises and to put the respondent in peaceful and vacant pos- session subject to the petitioners filing usual undertaking in this Court on affidavit within four weeks from today with an advance copy to the respondent through his counsel. There will be no order as to costs.