Arjun Ahuja vs S.C. Mehta
1998 Latest Caselaw 1108 Del

ORDER

C.M. Nayar, J.

1. The present petition is directed against the judgment dated 6th October, 1988 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The petition for eviction of the respondent was allowed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the petitioner was granted six months time to vacate the tenanted premises.

2. The petitioner became a tenant of the respondent on 12th April, 1979 and the premises were let out under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. The property comprises of ground floor flat (D.D.A.) No.187, Pocket No. 14, Block-C-4C, Janak Puri, New Delhi consisting of one drawing room, two bed rooms, kitchen, one bathroom and lavatory with open space. Admittedly the premises were let out for residential purposes and the petition was filed as the respondent required the same bonafide for himself and for other family members dependent upon him. The family of the petitioner consists of his wife, son, two daughters and aged mother. The respondent landlord was employed with National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) Lucknow and it was alleged that he was likely to be transferred to Delhi shortly. The learned Additional Rent Controller assessed the need of the respondent and gave the following findings:-

(a) The respondent was the owner of the premises in dispute.

There is no challenge to this finding and the same is, accordingly, affirmed.

(b) The premises admittedly were let out and used for residential purposes only. No challenge is made in respect of this finding as well.

(c) The question of bonafide need of the respondent was held proved and an order of eviction as a consequence was passed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent does not require the premises as he is presently based in Bareily and his need cannot be held to be genuine as he will not move to Delhi to stay in the tenanted premises. Secondly, it is contended that the petition for eviction was filed merely to coerce the petitioner to increase the rent. These pleas were examined and rejected by the Additional Rent Controller.

4. The respondent may be posted out of Delhi but the plea taken by him that the premises are required to settle his family members in Delhi cannot be faulted and the desire to do so cannot be termed as a fake and fanciful as it is well settled that it will be open for the respondent landlord to make his own choice and it will not be for the petitioner tenant to contend that the premises are not required bonafide for use of the respondent and his family members on the short ground that he is posted out of Delhi. The landlord is the best judge of his requirement and he is entitled to make his decision in this regard. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Prativa Devi (Smt) Vs. T.V. Krishnan has categorically held that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and he has the complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the findings as recorded by the Additional Rent Controller.

5. The plea that the respondent was trying to coerce the petitioner to increase the rent has also been disbelieved as it was held on appreciation of evidence that it was not proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Smt. Sushila Devi and others Vs. Avinash Chandra Jain and others reiterate the proposition that the law insists as a measure of social necessity that the Court should be satisfied as to the genuineness of the requirement of the landlord under Section 14(1)(e). The matter has to be considered objectively and cannot be examined merely on the plea that the tenant had been in occupation of the demised premises for a long period such as 40 year in that case. In the present case the learned Additional Rent Controller has conidered pleas of both the parties and taking into consideration the size of the family of the respondent and the persons dependent upon him came to the conclusion on appreciation of material placed on record that the need of the respondent is proved to be genuine and bonafide.

6. In view of the above reasons, the present petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. The petitioner is, however, granted time for a period of three months to vacate the tenanted premises.