Chander Sain Jain vs Shri Sumer Chand
1999 Latest Caselaw 832 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller passing an order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'DRC Act') respondent-tenant has preferred this revision petition. The impugned order was passed on 17.1.1989. For the last ten years in view of the injunction order granted by this Court, the order of eviction has not been executed.

2. Mr .R.M. Bagai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the present respondent has acquired and built a Palatial house at Rishab Vihar, Delhi after passing of the order of eviction. At the outset, I must say that when eviction petition was filed in the year 1983, leave to defend was filed by the petitioner-tenant and for six long years, trial took place before the Additional Rent Controller. Petitioner tenant disputed ownership and purpose of letting as well as requirement of the respondent. By a well reasoned order, the Additional Rent Controller in view of the documents and evidence placed before him, decided that the respondent was the owner, purpose of letting was residential and the premises were required bonafidely by the respondent. Is it open for the Petitioner now to say that subsequent event be taken into consideration? Of course, subsequent events can be taken into consideration if certain relevant and material information is withheld by any party during the trial and a party subsequently recovers that in a mala fide manner that information or material has been with held from the Court. Therefore, in my considered opinion, acquisition of some accommodation after an order of eviction has been passed by the Additional Rent Controller would not dis-entitle the respondent from such an order of eviction if on the date when eviction petition was filed the requirement of landlord was bona fide. In any event of the matter, as I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of alternative accommodation available with the respondent vis-a-vis the size of respondent's family, I would like to discuss the same.

3. According to Mr. Bagai, learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent after having built a house at Rishab Vihar, Delhi will not shift to the house at Subzi Mandi, Delhi. Mr. Bagai has further contended that the house is very spacious at Rishab Vihar, Delhi, therefore, the desire of the respondent to shift to a house in old Delhi, which is a congested area, is imaginary. He has further contended that the sole objective of the respondent is to sell that house at Subzi Mandi, Delhi.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Ishwar Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has filed the site plan of the house constructed at Rishab Vihar, Delhi. The house is constructed on an area of 270 sq. yds. On the ground floor, there are two bed rooms in addition to drawing and dining. Similarly, on the first floor, there are two bed rooms with drawing and dining. On the second floor, there is a Barsati and open terrace. The family of the respondent consists of respondent himself and his wife, four sons aged 33 years to 27 years. All the four sons of the respondent are married. Respondent's first son, who is married, has got children i.e. one daughter aged 9 Years and one son aged 5 years; second son has got one child aged 4 years; third son, who is also married, has got a daughter aged 2 years; and fourth son of the respondent is also married and has got a son. Even if the size of the family of the respondent is taken into consideration, they require six rooms to accommodate their family members apart from a room for guests and Visitors. The requirement of a 'Pooja Room' can not be termed as not bona fide. From the perusal of the site plan of the property at Rishab Vihar, Delhi, the way it has been constructed at best family members of three sons of the respondent can be accommodated. Yet the requirement of the family of the respondent fell short of accommodation in that house, therefore, it cannot be said that by acquiring the property at Rishab Vihar, Delhi, respondent does not require the premises in question bonafidely. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Shri Amarjit Singh Vs. Smt. Khatoon Quamarain JT 1986 (5) SC 912 and has contended that the respondent cannot seek comforts other than habitat. The case of Maqboolunnia Vs. Mohd. Saleha Quaraishi , cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has no application to this case as the said authority was considering the bona fide requirement in respect of commercial premises.

5. In Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan and Rena Drego Vs. Lalchand Soni & Ors. Supreme Court has held that the landlord is the best judge of his choice as to where he would like to live and the tenant cannot compel the landlord to live in a particular place and in a particular manner to enable him to enjoy the property. There is no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller.

6. Dismissed.