Krishan Lal Arora vs Ved Parkash And Anr.
1996 Latest Caselaw 274 Del

JUDGMENT

C.M. Nayar, J.

(1) The present second appeal arises form the judgment dated January 11, 1984 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, which upheld the order of eviction passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 6th August, 1983.

(2) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a tenant in respect of the demised premises consisting of one room, kitchen, bath, toilet forming part of property No. 461-462, Nau Ghera, Teliwara, Delhi, which were let out for residential purposes. The eviction petition was filed on the grounds of bonafide requirement as well as for non-payment of arrears of rent since December, 1977 at the rate of Rs. 25.00 per month despite service of demand notice dated August 30, 1979. The family of the respondents comprised of husband, wife (respondents herein), four daughters and three sons. The appellant contended that the respondents did not need the premises bona fide and their main motive was to let out the same for commercial purposes. After the purchase of the property in June, 1974 the respondents let out the other portion to M/s Batra Glass Co. and Joginder Nath who was having a Kowari shop. The room in possession of the appellant was a very small room and the appellant had unmarried sister who was also living in the same premises.

(3) The Additional Rent Controller appraised the evidence on record and came to the findings (a) that the family of the respondents consisted of husband, wife, four daughters, three sons, two of them were married having children and, as such, they could not be accommodated conveniently in one room; (b) the appellant has not been able to establish the motive of the respondents to get the premises vacated and re-let the same for commercial purposes on a higher rate of rent. In view of the admitted facts, as stated above, the requirement of the respondents was held to be bonafide and an order of eviction was passed in their favour. The petition, however, was dismissed under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act as not maintainable. The appellant felt aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller and filed an appeal in the Court of Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The plea of the respondents for eviction on the ground as contained in Section 14(1)(a) was rejected and the order of the Rent Controller was affirmed in this regard. The Tribunal next considered the ground of eviction under clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section I of Section 14 of the Act and referred to the evidence on record. There was no dispute about the purpose of letting which was accordingly held to be residential. The ownership of the respondents was proved and finding in this regard was also affirmed. The question of bonafide requirement was considered including the plea that the Rent Controller was in error in looking after the requirement of respondents' daughters who were married. The learned judge accepted that the requirement of the married daughters has to be excluded except for their temporary visits. The appellant also moved an application under Order 41 Rule27oftheCode of Civil Procedure during the pendency of the appeal to reiterate that the eldest son of the respondents had shifted to another premises as well as to prove that the respondents owned other property which will indicate that they did not require the tenanted premises bona fide. The respondents contested this application and reasserted that their sons were living with them and they had taken premises No. 1487/96 Shanti Nagar, Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs. 200.00 as licencees. It is denied that any of their sons was permanently living in that house. came in possession of the respondents was also negatived on the ground that the said accommodation were shops and not residential rooms and it will be unfair to insist that the landlords should live in these shops.There is no serious challenge to these findings.

(4) The learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the respondents had let out two rooms and the requirement could not be held to be bona fide. It is, however, not disputed that the respondents are also living in a rented accommodation in a small room. The only plea is taken that the tenanted premises is also composed of one room, kitchen, bath etc. and similar accommodation is available with them at present. Therefore, it will be futile for them to shift to the tenanted premises as there will be no change in the size of the accommodation. This plea cannot be sustained as it is the landlord who is the best judge of his residential requirement and he has got complete freedom in the matter so that he is not deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of his property. The plea of bona fide requirement cannot be rejected on this ground. The respondents are paying rent and staying in the alternative accommodation as tenants and it is always open to them to revert to their own property which they can improve, such as, they can build certain portions to increase the accommodation. The same cannot be done in the property where they are presently residing as tenants. The family of the respondents is, admittedly, comprised of four daughters, three sons and most of them are married and have children. The requirement in this background cannot be held to be anything but bona fide. The Additional Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal have given concurrent findings of fact in this regard. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to bring to my notice any error of law or of jurisdiction which calls for interference in the present Second Appeal.

(5) The appeal, as a consequence, is dismissed. It is, however, brought to my notice that the appellant Shri K.L. Arora is ill and is not able to shift immediately from the premises due to his present state of health. In view of the facts as stated, the appellant is granted time to vacate the demised premises till 31st December, 1996 subject to filing of usual affidavit of undertaking within two months from today. There will be no order as to costs.