Ramni Sehgal vs Sh. A.M. Siddiqui
1999 Latest Caselaw 1103 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition was filed in the year 1955 on account of dismissal of the eviction petition by the Additional Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

2. It is contended by Mr. Goswami learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings of the Additional Rent Controller were perverse. The respondent-tenant denied the ownership as well as the purpose of letting. According to him, the petitioner was not the owner and the premises were let out for composite purposes. Additional Rent Controller did not agree with the respondent-tenant herein on the basis of the material placed on record and held that the petitioner was the owner and the purpose of letting was residential.

3. To my mind, there was no justification for the Additional Rent Controller to use the words as to "what she-landlady meant about her relations with her father-in-law when she stated that it was not cordial." It is a common knowledge that relations between in law and daughter-in-law at some point of time, may not be cardial. Those relations may at later stages become cordial or it may be very un-pleasant also. No hard and fast stand can be taken on such emotive matters. therefore, the observations of the Additional Rent controller that the petitioner separated from her father-in-law after her marriage in November, 1985 and shifted to a rented house at E-82, Masjid Moth, and why and how she rerejoined with her father-in-law in 1987 can not be believed. The additional Rent Controller ought not to have outrightly rejected the testimony of the petitioner that after some time she separated from her father-in-law, it is possibly may be wisdom dawned on the young couple and they went back to the father-in-law. The approach of Additional Rent Controller in this case, particularly, the following observations in para 16 of the impugned judgment were totally unwarranted :-

"This makes me to recollect a proverb that it is comfortable to live in ones own jhuggi than a palace belonging to other. If she was not having good relations with her father-in-law, she should have and would have preferred to live in her own property instead of rejoining her father-in-law."

4. Judicial discipline does not permit these kinds of proverbs to be used in judgments or orders without any basis. Similarly, in para 17 of the impugned order, the Additional Rent Controller has based and conjectures.

5. An application was moved before the Additional Rent Controller under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC to the effect that the father of the petitioner was very old and he also wanted to live in the house on the ground floor. When the application was moved, father was 68 years old, now he is 73 years old.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that initially this fact was not mentioned in the petition that accommodation was required for the father. May be at the time when the petition was filed, the father did not want to stay in the house of the daughter as petitioner is the only child of her father. The desire of father of the petitioner to stay in the house which he himself has built initially though in the name of the petitioner, cannot be outrightly rejected, more so after the death of the wife i.e. mother of the Petitioner. The Additional Rent Controller committed grave irregularity in not allowing the application of the petitioner which was moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC incorporating the need of father of the petitioner to live in the property in question.

7. It has been contended before me that father of the petitioner now is in such a critical condition that he can not climb the stairs. Therefore, it is necessary to have him on the ground floor. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that no evidence has been brought on record that the aunt of the petitioner is living on the first floor. It is immaterial whether the aunt is living on the first floor or not so long as the condition of father of the petitioner is such that he cannot use the first floor or the second floor of the property in question. A tenant cannot be permitted to enjoy the property when the petitioner or her father is in dire need of the said premises.

8. In view of the discussions above, I set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller, pass a Decree of Eviction against the respondent. However, the Decree of Eviction shall not be executed before the expiry of a period of six months.

9. The Civil Revision is allowed.