Sudershan Dutta vs Krishan Narain And Ors.
1997 Latest Caselaw 499 Del

JUDGMENT

Usha Mehra, J.

(1) Krishan Narain and others sought eviction of two rooms, one verandah, kitchen, bath room and latrine on the first floor of premises bearing flat No. 2, House No. 6079, Block UB-39, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi in occupation of the tenant petitioner herein. The petition was filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. Leave to contest by the petitioner was rejected by the Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) thereby holding that no triable issue had been raised by this petitioner. That the need of this respondent/landlord and bonafide. Aggrieved by this order present revision has been preferred.

(2) To appreciate the challenge we may have quick glance to the brief facts of the case. The respondent No. 1 and husband of respondent No. 2 were the sons of Shri Sri Narain owner of the premises in question. After his death, respondent No. 1 and the husband of respondent No. 2 alongwith their sisters inherited this property. Sisters of the respondents relinquished their right in favour of the respondent No. 1 and husband of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 with his wife has been residing in two-rooms set on the first floor of the premises in question. He is issueless. Respondent No. 2 with her husband and three married sons had been in occupation of three-room set on the first floor. Three-room set on the first floor is in occupation of respondent No. 2's married sons. Since the family was growing and they needed more accommodation, therefore, sought additional accommodation. The question of the respondents being the owner landlord of the premises was not in dispute. The purpose of letting was admitted to be residential. So far as number of family members and the accommodation in their occupation was also not in dispute. The fact that sons of respondent No. 2 namely respondents 3,4 and 5 have been living in the premises in question alongwith respondent No. 2 and also when their father Shri Basant Narain was alive was also not in dispute.

(3) In view of the admitted position, the only point for consideration is whether on account of the extra accommodation needed by the respondent, petitioner raised any triable issue.

(4) I have perused the leave to defend affidavit filed by the petitioner and also the site plan filed by the respondents. At the outset it must be said that the learned Arc considered all the aspects of these facts as well as the law on the point. After considering the same he gave a well reasoned order. Learned Arc has not faulted in any manner. Respondent No. 1 is already in occupation of two-room set on the first floor. Learned Arc in the impugned order considered this fact and concluded that even if additional need of respondent No. 1 ignored still the other respondents need is bonafide. Respondent No. 2 requires one independent room for herself. Her three married sons require two rooms each. Each other married son had one child each. Keeping in view the child and his need, son of the respondent No. 2 required one additional room. One room in each son's possession is not sufficient to accommodate the couple and the child and luggage. This Court in the case of Sulekh Ch. Jain v. Vinesh Ch. Sheth, 1986 Rlr page 17 held that the married sons of the landlord are entitled to two rooms each. In the present case three sons are occupying only one room each. They are married having children. No separate accommodation is available for the children who are in the growing age. That apart, plan shows the size of the rooms in their occupation varied from 13.10"" x 8.10"", 13.10" x 10" and 13.10" x 9.7"' respectively. The sizes of the rooms are very small. It appears to be difficult to accommodate a husband and wife and their children in the same room. To fit in the luggage as well as children's cot in such a small room must be difficult. They have no separate store available to them to keep their luggage. The learned Arc rightly concluded that the accommodation in their possessions was not sufficient. Lach of the married son require an additional room besides the living room. The learned Arc took note of the factum of the vacation of two rooms by the other tenant and concluded that even if additional rooms were made available to the landlord, still the accommodation with them was not sufficient. So far as the accommodation to be vacated by an other tenant in July, 1998 that cannot be a ground to grant leave nor the respondents/landlords can be disentitled for eviction because a room would be available to them in 1998. Their need as on the date of filing the petition has to be seen. Triable issue cannot be based on happening of future. The minimum need of the respondents/landlords in nine rooms i.e. two rooms each for the married sons, one room for respondent No. 2, one drawing and dining, one guest room or store or puja room. Taking minimum requirement of respondent No. 2 and members of her family nine rooms' requirement cannot be called whimsical or fanciful.

(5) So far as one room on the barsati is concerned, as per the site plan placed on record there does not exist any kitchen with that room. The improvised W.C. is there besides bath room and a store. Barsati room even if counted as living room, it still does not satisfy the requirement of respondent No. 2 and her family members. Supreme Court in the case of Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, held that the landlord is the best judge of his residential accommodation. It was also observed that High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in interfering with Rent Controller's order which was based on proper appreciation of evidence. In the casein hand, admittedly the members of the respondents family are large in number, the accommodation in their occupation is not disputed. The learned Arc after applying his mind and keeping in view the large number of respondent No. 2's family concluded that the need of the landlord was bonafide. I do not think this Court in its revisional jurisdiction should interfere with a well reasoned and well considered finding of the Controller. This Court in the cases of Amar Nath & Anr. v. Smt. Kiran Wati, and Silvertone Mfg. Co. of India & Anr. v. Smt. Usha Soi, while considering the bonafide requirement of a landlord held that the need of the landlord to have a puja and store room was justified. In fact it need hardly be impressed that an owner/landlord is the best judge of his requirements and so long as his judgment is not fanciful or malafide, the Court should not substitute its own opinion. The landlord has a right to make himself more comfortable. What is a reasonable requirement. The nature of accommodation available, status and the standard of living to which the person has been accustomed to and the extent of his family are the relevant considerations. Learned Arc rightly observed that it would not be just to require the landlady/owner to adjust in a small barsati floor or in a mezzanine room. As observed by this Court the purpose and satisfaction of owning a house are of no avail if one has just to be a by-stander and required to adjust oneself in a makeshift arrangement. Moreover, in case the respondents violate their representation made in the petition and instead occupying the premises let it out at the higher rate recourse is available to the petitioner under Section 19 of the Act to seek delivery back of the possession.

(6) Admittedly, the sons of respondent No. 2 are having common mess but it does not lead to the conclusion that they don't require separate rooms. They are occupying separate rooms. Respondent No. 2 with her sons being one undivided family has to have that much accommodation which could meet her requirements. It was brought on record by the respondents that the roof height of the room on the barsati was six feet which can hardly be called a living room. The sizes of the rooms are not large enough to accommodate the married couple and their children nor the other room is large enough to be used both as drawing-cum-dining room. Family members of respondent No. 2's married sons are growing. Her three married sons have their own children. Except one room each the married sons have no store nor a room for their children nor separate drawing or dining room. Respondents also do not have a spare room to be used as and when their five married sisters come and stay with them.

(7) Keeping the above facts in view, I find that the reasoning given by the learned Arc cannot be faulted with nor can be interfered. Impugned order is well reasoned order. I find no infirmity in the same nor any merit in the petition, hence dismissed.