Daljit Singh vs Cdr. Bipin Kumar Sharma
1998 Latest Caselaw 310 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner, who happens to be a tenant in the first floor of premises bearing Municipal No.E-116, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, has filed this revision petition, against the order of eviction dated 30.5.1997, passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, 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, in brief, culminating in filing of the present revision petition, may be noticed:

(i) Respondent is the owner of the premises in suit. He retired from the Indian Navy in the year 1994. The premises in suit had been let out by the late father of the respondent, Shri Shiv Charan Lal Sharma to the petitioner. Respondent's father is stated to have died on 28.4.1986, leaving behind, besides the respondent, his second wife, i.e. the step mother of the respondent; and one daughter, i.e. the step-sister of the respondent. The step-mother and step-sister of the respondent executed and registered relinquishment deeds, relinquishing their rights in the property in favour of the respondent. The Delhi Development Authority and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi also mutated the property in the name of the respondent in their records. The case of the respondent is that the understanding between him and his step-mother and step-sister was that the respondent would not disturb his step-mother, who was in occupation of the ground floor of the house, during her life-time and it was on this understanding that the relinquishment deeds were executed by them.

(ii) Respondent's family comprises the respondent, his wife, a daughter around 19 to 20 years of age; a son over 20 years, who is now stated to have joined the Navy; and another son around 14 years of age.

(iii) Respondent, after his retirement from the Indian Navy, took employment with M/s.Manorma Packaging and has been residing in a rented accommodation at R-5/29, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, at a monthly rental of Rs.5,000/-. It is the respondent's case that he requires the premises in suit, viz. the first floor of House No.E-116, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, for his own residence and for the residence of the members of his family, who are dependent upon him. Respondent's daughter is presently doing a course with the All India Management Association at Lodhi Estate, New Delhi and is required to commute daily from Ghaziabad to Delhi. Respondent and his family members, it is stated, want to reside in their own house and move out from the rented accommodation. The ground floor of the premises in suit, i.e. E-116, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, is in occupation of his step-mother, who, as per the understanding with her, is not to be disturbed therefrom. Out of the three bedrooms available to her, she requires one room for her own bedroom; another room has been converted as a Pooja room; and the third room is being used for paying-guests, which provide her a source of income to the step-mother after the death of respondent's father.

(iv) Leave to contest was granted by the learned Additional Rent Controller on 13.2.1996 and after the completion of pleadings, the respondent examined himself, his landlady at Ghaziabad and his step-mother. The petitioner examined himself alone. The learned Additional Rent Controller, after appreciation of evidence on record, in a well-reasoned judgement, passed the order of eviction, holding that the premises in suit were let out for residential purpose and were bonafide required by the respondent for his residence and that the respondent did not possess any suitable alternate accommodation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tiger Singh, has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the respondent is permanently settled at Ghaziabad. He is gainfully employed there and that is why he has taken accommodation at Ghaziabad at a monthly rental of Rs.5,000/- and not chosen to take accommodation, even on rent, anywhere in Gurgaon, Noida or Delhi. Learned counsel submits that even before his retirement, respondent had negotiated and obtained employment in Ghaziabad and he continues to be gainfully employed and has no reason or desire to shift therefrom. He submits that he is well-settled in Ghaziabad and there is nothing by way of documentary evidence to show as to why respondent wants to shift to Delhi. It is his case that he has no intention to shift to Delhi. Respondent's son is stated to be studying at Delhi Public School at Ghaziabad.

Alternatively, it is argued that if respondent wants to shift to Delhi, he has sufficient accommodation available on the ground floor of the premises in suit. The old lady, who is around 72 years of age, requires only one room. It is stated that the story about paying-guests is a concocted one and there is no permission taken to run the guest house from the Municipal and other authorities. The respondent, hitherto before, never made any request, either before or after his retirement, for vacating the house, which showed that he had no intention to reside in the premises in suit. The eviction petition had been filed with the sole purpose of reletting the premises at a higher rate of rent.

4. On a consideration of the matter and the evidence on record, I find the submission of the petitioner, to be devoid of merit. It is well-settled that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirements and it was for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live. If the landlord wants to beneficially enjoy his own property when the other property, occupied by him as a tenant or on any other basis, is either insecure or inconvenient, it is not for the Courts to dictate to him to continue to occupy such premises. It is also not necessary for a landlord to first shift to some rented accommodation and then file a petition for eviction to establish his bonafide intention to shift to the premises in suit. Reference in this connection may may be made to the judgements in Prativa Devi (Smt.) Vs. T.V. krishnan and Deepika Arora Vs. S.N. Sehgal & Ors. (1995 RLR 219).

5. In the instant case, the respondent, immediately after his retirement, took the accommodation on rent at Ghaziabad. Respondent's daughter is required to commute from Ghaziabad to Delhi everyday and his old step-

mother is living alone in the premises on the ground floor. In these circumstances, if the respondent wants himself or members of his family to shift to his own house, such a desire cannot be said to be a feigned desire or a pretense.

6. During the course of arguments, it has been stated at the bar, which fact is not disputed, that the respondent has ceased to be in the employment of M/s.Manorma Packaging and has taken over as the Principal of Brig.Rana Singh Public School at Dujana, Rohtak. Respondent has already left Ghaziabad to take charge at Rohtak, while his family continues to live at Ghaziabad. In these circumstances, it would be a compulsive necessity for the respondent to have his family shifted to the premises in suit at Delhi.

7. The next objection of the petitioner is that there is sufficient accommodation available to the respondent on the ground floor of the premises in suit, which are presently in the occupation of the step mother of the respondent. It would be seen that respondent's family, comprising two adults, his grown up daughter and sons, would require at least three bedrooms, which would not be available on the ground floor of the premises. This is without taking into account the growing requirements of the respondent's elder son, who is presently under training in the Navy at Vishakapatnam.

It has also come in evidence that even during the period when the petitioner was in service, on his posting in Delhi in 1989, respondent could stay with the step-mother only for a period of five months or so while he could not get alternate accommodation. Respondent and his family found themselves uncomfortable, as has been deposed by the espondent and his step-mother, resulting in the respondent taking rented accommodation in Delhi from January 1989 to June 1990, prior to the allotment of the official accommodation. The step-mother of the respondent had appeared in the witness box and supported the respondent. She had also deposed about her keeping paying guests and the amount the paying guests were paying, which provided her with her source of income. The said testimony stands unrebutted. It would, therefore, be seen that the ground floor of the premises cannot be regarded as alternate suitable accommodation available to the respondent.

8. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner, had feebly attempted to urge that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose. Petitioner has singularly failed to lead any evidence in this regard and the learned Additional Rent Controller, for good reasons, as set out in para 8 of the judgement, rejected the contention.

9. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no infirmity or error in the impugned order. The revision petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.