Smt. Raj Monga vs Dr. O.P. Malik (Retd.)
1999 Latest Caselaw 67 Del

JUDGMENT

C.M. Nayar, J.

1. The present petition is directed against the judgment dated 27th January, 1998 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi granting an Order of eviction from the tenanted premises bearing No. 1-A, 41-C, Second Floor, DDA Flats, Ashok. Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi-52 consisting of two bed rooms, one drawing room and dining room, lobby with one W.C. and one bath room, kitchen and open terrace. The family of respondent no. 1 comprises of himself, his wife, two sons and daughters-in-law and four grand children. The first son at the relevant time was posted in Indonesia and, it is stated, is presently posted in Singapore. The other son is an Army Officer. Respondent No. 1 himself retired as a Doctor in 1983 and was running a charitable clinic. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent is residing at Nahan in his own accommodation and, therefore, there is no need for him to move to Delhi. The respondent on the other hand has taken the plea that he wants to move to Delhi as he intends to live with his relatives who are mostly in Delhi in his old age. It has further been stated that the education of the grand children of the respondent is suffering and the premises are required bonafide for himself as well as for his family members dependent upon him. The matter was examined in detail and the parties led their respective evidence after leave to contest was granted and on appreciation of the evidence as well as on the basis of the material placed on record, the learned Additional Rent Controller came to a categorical finding that the need of the respondent as well as for the family members dependent upon him is bonafide and cannot be termed as false and fanciful.

2. The law is well settled that the landlord is the best Judge of his residential requirement and it is not open for the Court or for the petitioner-tenant to dictate to him in what manner he should live or to prescribe to him a residential standard of its own. This was so held in Prativa Devi (Smt) V. T.V. Krishna . Paragraph 2 of this judgment makes the following reading :

"2. The proven facts are that the appellant who is a widow, since the demise of her husband late Shiv Nath Mukherjee, has been staying as a guest with Shri N.C. Chatterjee who was a family friend of her late husband, at B-4/20, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi. There is nothing to show that she has any kind of right whatever to stay in the house of Shri Chatterjee. On the other hand, she is there merely by sufferance. The reason given by the High Court that the appellant is an old lady aged about 70 years and has no one to look after her and therefore she should continue to live with Shri Chatterjee, was hardly a ground sufficient for interference. The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. The High Court is rather solicitous about the age of the appellant and thinks that because of her age she needs to be looked after. Now, that is a look out of the appellant and not of the High Court. We fail to appreciate the High Court giving such a gratuitous advice which was uncalled for. There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property. We accordingly reverse the finding reached by the High Court and restore that of the Rent Controller that the appellant had established her bona fide requirement of the demis'ed premises for her personal use and occupation which finding was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence in the light of the surrounding circumstances."

3. Similarly the Supreme Court has held in Sarla Ahuja V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 76 (1998) DLT 1 in the following manner in paragraph 14 :-

"14. The crux of the ground envisaged in Clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by Courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavor as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."

4. The Additional Rent Controller has assessed the entire material on the basis of the pleadings and evidence and it will not be open for this Court to exercise revisional powers to reverse the findings which categorically establish that the respondent requires the premises bonafide for his own use as well as for the family members dependent upon him. The present petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.