Mohd. Yunus Khan vs Nawab-Uddin
1999 Latest Caselaw 1108 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, the present revision petition has been filed by the landlord. The eviction petition was filed in the year 1980 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. That eviction petition was disposed of after expiry of 11 years on 12.8.1991 . Eviction petition was filed on the ground of bona fide requirement. The requirement of the petitioner was considered bona fide by the Additional Rent Controller. However, the petitioner was non-suited on the ground that the purpose of letting was composite as well as also on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. The finding with regard to ownership was also in favour of the petitioner/landlord.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Additional Rent Controller had completely lost sight of rent notes Ex. AW 1/4 and Ex. AW 1/13. The former rent note was executed by the respondent in the year 1970 with previous landlord and the later was executed in favour of the present petitioner. Mr. Lonial has contended that the Additional Rent Controller went into the material which was not relevant and germane to the controversy. He has contended that in rent note it was explicitly mentioned that letting was for the purpose of Sakunat and the word "Sakunat" in Urdu language means `residence'. He has further contended that there was a fresh tenancy between the petitioner and the respondent. Father of the respondent was previously the tenant in respect of the property. He died, upon his death a rent note was executed in favour of the respondent. Therefore, respondent had no right to allege that other legal heirs were also necessary parties and in the absence of the other legal heirs, the petition was bad for non-joinder of parties.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that the finding of the Additional. Rent Controller was based on cogent material as the premises were in the tenancy of the father of the respondent from 1910 . It has also been contended before me by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is with the knowledge and consent of the previous landlord that the father of the respondent was carrying on the business of dye-making in the premises in question since 1947-48. It has been further contended that there was no implied surrender of tenancy and other legal heirs were necessary parties and has stoutly defended the order of the Additional Rent Controller. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Jamila Begum & Others, Vs. Jumma alias Billu Rehman and Others , Munshi Ram Sakhuja Vs. Col. Ram Parshad (Retd.) and Dattatraya Pandit Kharote Vs. Pandurang Maruti Jadhav 1991 RCR (1) 520 .

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that during the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner has constructed 3 rooms in the premises in question on various floors and, therefore, in any case the requirement stands satisfied.

5. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. At the outset I must state that in this matter the learned Additional Rent Controller has committed a grave irregularity. The law is well settled regarding interpretation of written lease deed or rent notes. When there is a written instrument which governs the terms and conditions between the parties, no other evidence is required in this regard. In view of Ex. AW 1/13 as well as Ex. AW 1/4 where the specific rate of rent, the purpose of letting has been mentioned, there was no need to go into any other evidence by the Additional Rent Controller. If the rent note was executed in favour of the respondent and the respondent was aggrieved as to why the name of other legal heirs have not been included in the rent note ? What stopped the respondent from agitating the matter with the petitioner? The Rent Note was executed by the petitioner in his favour in the year 1975. No grievance with regard to other legal heirs was raised by the respondent from 1975 till 1980, when the eviction petition was filed. That was a crucial fact which ought to have been noticed by the Additional Rent Controller.

6. I have perused through the Urdu English Dictionary. The word "Sakunat" is defined as "dwelling,. residence, habitation". In view of explicit terms in the Ex. AW 1/13 , the whole discussion on the purpose of letting was unnecessary in the impugned order. I also do not find any force in the arguments of the counsel for the respondent that the premises were used by father of the respondent for composite purpose, firstly, in view of Ex. AW 1/13 and secondly, in view of rent receipt which was issued to the respondent. With regard to rent receipt , the respondent has taken the plea that the word `residential' on the rent receipt was mentioned in English and he could only understand Urdu. But how the respondent will escape from the rent note which is executed in Urdu, a language known to the respondent, in which it has been specifically mentioned that the purpose for letting was for "Sakunat" ? Judging from any angle, the order of the Additional Rent Controller cannot be sustained. Dealing with the last submission of the counsel for the respondent, that the petitioner has built three rooms in the property and his requirement stands satisfied, it has been brought to my notice that now the petitioner, who is a Deputy Manager of State Bank of India at Head Quarters Branch, has got his mother, his wife, one daughter of marriageable age of 25 years, one son 23 years old and two twin sons of 14 years of age. Admittedly, the petitioner has only one room in his possession. There is requirement of one room for his mother, one room for himself and his wife, one room for daughter, one room for elder son and even if we push the two 14 years old sons in one room, this makes the total requirement of the accommodation for the petitioner to five rooms. Apart from that the petitioner also requires a room for his visitors, guests, friends and relatives. One room is also required by the petitioner, keeping in view of his social status, for drawing-cum-dining room. That makes the requirement of the petitioner for 7 rooms. Even if I take the accommodation which has been constructed during the pendency of this revision, still the accommodation of the petitioner falls short of his requirement.

7. I set aside the finding of the Additional Rent Controller and allow the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and pass an order of eviction against the respondent from the premises in question. However, the decree of eviction shall not be executed for a period of six months.

8. Petition stands disposed of.