K.D. Nagrath (Dr.) vs Mrs. Neena Sarna & Ors.
1999 Latest Caselaw 790 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. This revision petition is filed against the dismissal of eviction petition, which was filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, by petitioner who is a Doctor at present residing in United Kingdom. The eviction petition was filed in the year 1994. Leave to contest was granted to respondent No. 3. The Additional Rent Controller dismissed the petition of the landlord on the ground that the requirement of the petitioner was not bone fide. It was held that the petitioner was owner. It was also held that the premises were let out for residential purposes. There is no dispute with regard to the extent of accommodation available with the petitioner in the demises premises. The accommodation available to the petitioner is two bed rooms with attached bath room, kitchen and drowning room and open verandah in the front and rear on the ground floor and one Barsati room on the terrace. The tenant is in occupation of the first floor. The reason for not believing the petitioner according to Addl. Rent Controller was that the requirement qua his son, his wife, married daughters, real brothers and sisters, relatives of the wife, widowed sister Smt. Kamla Devi and guests could not be proved and petitioner was only successful in proving that he needed the accommodation for himself. Addl. Rent Controller went a step further and also held in the following words:

"Similarly the wife of the petitioner is not likely to shift India. Still, to cut short the controversy, I am presuming that she may shift along with the petitioner and this is I am holding despite the fact that neither she has been examined nor her affidavit has been placed on record. In view of the fact that normally a wife will remain with her husband."

2. There was a specific averment made that the premises were also required for Smt. Kamla Devi, widowed sister of the petitioner as she would be also living with the petitioner. Addl. Rent Controller disbelieved and held that the requirement of the petitioner and his wife to have more accommodation on the first floor was not genuine and bona fide. Mr. Rohtagi has contended that the petitioner is 68 years old. He has been working in National Health Scheme in Britain and after 68 years of age he is entitled for retirement, he is to shift to India and this is the only house which is available for his accommodation. He has further contended that before the Addl. Rent Controller, although the petitioner was not required to give any undertaking, however,in order to prove his bona fide the petitioner gave an undertaking that throughout his life time he will not sell this property and he will stay in the house. He further stated that six passports were filed before the Addl. Rent Controller to demonstrate that the petitioner was visiting India at least 2 to 3 times in a year and he had his roots in this country and he wanted to shift to India bone fidely. Therefore, the life style to which he is used to live in UK, he would like to live in his own house where he can use some space for his practice and other rooms for his own abode.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that it was a case of creation of artificial scarcity created by the petitioner as no passport of the wife was filed nor wife's testimony was recorded before the Addl. Rent Controller. He further stated that accommodation available on the ground floor was sufficient for the petitioner. He has contended that the petitioner miserable failed to make out a case for additional accommodation.

4. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. The finding of the Addl. Rent Controller while holding that the requirement of the petitioner and his wife was bona fide and still dismissing the eviction petition on the ground that the sons and other relatives of the petitioner were not put in the witness box, was totally perverse. A person who is settled abroad and has been working as a professional in the present case as a Doctor has a different and distinct life style. Even if the petitioner has to shift to India in his own house, he cannot be compelled to stay only in two bed rooms on ground floor. The tenant cannot dictate to a landlord that he must have to live in two rooms because he is occupying other two rooms on the first floor. Addl. Rent Controller while arriving at the conclusion that the requirement of the petitioner and his wife was genuine and bona fide, completely lost sight of the fact that the petitioner had seven brothers and four sisters who are living in India and not in England. Petitioner would require a room for consultation for his clinic and one room for his guests and relations either from India or abroad. According to our way of life, no evidence is required about the visit of friends and relatives, friends and relatives do visit occasionally every person until and unless it is brought on evidence that a man is recluse, therefore, requirement of a guest room for that purpose is neither mala fide nor excessive.

5. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner requires additional accommodation on the first floor. I set aside the order of the Addl. Rent Controller and pass a decree of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. However, the decree shall not be executed before the expiry of period of six months.

6. Petition is allowed.