Rudra Dutt Sharma vs Shri Som Nath Ghosh
1999 Latest Caselaw 821 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. By a separate order I have disposed of CR No. 612/1998. Both the cases pertain to same premises. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petitioner by the Additional Rent Controller, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Eviction petition was filed against the respondents under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'DRC Act'). According to the petitioner, one room was let out to the respondent on 8.9.1981 @ Rs. 190/= per month on the first floor. It is the case of the petitioner that on 7.3.1982 a verandah was also let out to the respondent-Som Nath Ghosh and rent from Rs. 190/= was increased to Rs. 290/=. Respondent did not make the payment of rent after February 1983.

2. Respondent-Som Nath Ghosh filed a suit on 31.3.1983 claiming that he was the tenant not only in respect of one room and verandah but also another room in which Shobha Ghosh was a tenant. In the said proceedings, Sub Judge held that "The suit premises is wrongly described by the plaintiff. He is tenant of only one room and verandah at the rate of Rs 290/- per month". That suit was dismissed by the Sub Judge on 21.1.1986. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the suit, respondent-Som Nath Ghosh preferred an appeal which was also dismissed.

3. Not satisfied respondent-Som Nath Ghosh filed an application fox fixation of standard rent claiming that standard rent of the premises should be fixed at Rs. 5/- per month. In the said application for fixation of standard rent in spite of the fact that Som Nath Ghosh's own suit where-by he claimed that entire first floor of the premises in question under his tenancy was negatived by the Civil Court, yet he maintained the same in the new application for fixation of standard rent that the entire first floor was under his tenancy. That application was also dismissed. Mr. J C Mahindroo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has stated that appeal against the said order is still pending before the Rent Control Tribunal.

4. Mr. Mahindroo has contended that in view of the testimony of AW-1, who himself has stated in the cross-examination that the premises in question was used by the respondent for composite purposes right from the inception of tenancy, nothing more was required by the Additional Rent Controller to go into other evidence produced by the petitioner. Mr. Mahindroo has further contended that in view of the survey report of the House-tax Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi where the house-tax was levied on the basis of commercial user, the finding with regard to the purpose of letting by the Additional Rent Controller cannot be disputed. Mr. Mahindroo has also contended that in view of the testimony of AW-1 that there was some writing which he admitted in the cross-examination and that writing having not been filed in the Court, adverse inference was to be drawn against the petitioner. He has contended that the requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide as during the pendency of the petition, two additional rooms were constructed by the petitioner on the ground floor and on that aspect of the statement of the respondent, no cross-examination has been conducted by the petitioner. He has further contended that premises were let out in 1981 and the petition on the ground of bona fide requirements was filed in 1984 when there was no change in the circumstances and, therefore, the petition was filed mala fide. Mr. Mahindroo has further contended that property is situated in commercial area and the same is not required by the petitioner, who has otherwise converted two rooms on the ground floor as shops during the pendency of the petition. It was stated so by the respondent in his deposition and no cross-examination on this score also has been conducted by the petitioner.

5. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. Paragraph-11 of the impugned order passed by the Additional Rent Controller deals with the statement of AW-1, who stated that right from the inception of the tenancy, the premises were used for composite purposes. Purpose of letting and its user are neither synonymous nor interchangeable words. Both contain different meanings. Can it be said that the purpose of letting was composite it view of the receipts, which have been brought on record by the respondent himself? A material document, which could have clinched the whole issue, was the counter-foil of first rent receipt dated 8.9.1981, which was brought on record by the petitioner and which bears the signature of the respondent in Bengali. He has signed that receipt as a tenant in which it is specifically mentioned that one room on the first "REEHAISHEE." For the reasons best known to the Additional Rent Controller, this has not been taken into consideration at all. It was also to be taken into consideration that the premises in question were situated at the first floor and it was in narrow lane at Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Therefore, only on the basis of survey report of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi showing that the house tax was levied for commercial user, the finding of the Additional Rent Controller is not tenable. Premises may be used by a tenant, after the same having been let out for residential purposes, for commercial purposes and When survey is done by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on the basis of the user of the premises, Municipal Corporation of Delhi may impose tax on the property for commercial usage but that will not change the purpose of letting. In the cross-examination of Aw-1 on the basis of deposition that the premises were used by the respondent for commercial purposes, the Additional Rent Controller has returned the finding that the purpose of letting was composite but in the same cross-examination the petitioner has stated that the premises was let out for residential purposes and therefore, I hold that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller for the purpose of letting suffers from infirmity on the basis of the record which was brought before the Additional Rent Controller.

6. With regard to the bona fide requirements of the petitioner, it is not disputed that the petitioner requires one room for himself and his wife, petitioner has got four children from ages 10 to 23 years. The ages of the sons are 10 to 23 years whereas daughters are 13 years and 18 years. All the children require separate rooms for their residence. Requirement of a guest room cannot be termed to be unreasonable. The accommodation available on the ground floor, as per the site plan filed by the petitioner, consists of two rooms of 10 feet x 8 feet and 14 feet x 8 feet. Even if during the pendency of the proceedings verandah on the ground floor has been converted into a room, still the requirement fell short even after taking into consideration the identical accommodation available on the second floor of the property in question. I set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller and pass an order of eviction against the respondent, however, the execution proceedings shall not be initiated for a period of six months from the date of this order.

7. Revision Petition is allowed accordingly.