Ram Babu Mathur vs Sh. Dinesh Goel
1999 Latest Caselaw 897 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order of the dismissal of eviction petition under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the landlord-petitioner has filed this civil revision petition.

2. It has been contended by Mr. Ishwar Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner that the family of the petitioner consists of petitioner, his wife, two married sons, their wives and one unmarried daughter. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had two married daughters who also visit the petitioner occasionally. Apart from that, the petitioner, at the time of filing of the eviction petition had three grand children. Now, the number of grand children has increased. They are now four. From the first son of the petitioner there are two sons aged 12 and 10 years. From the second son, there are two sons aged 11 years and 7 years. Accommodation available with the petitioner is four rooms on the first floor and two rooms on the ground floor. The Additional Rent Controller committed grave error in holding that no separate accommodation was required for any grand children. It was wrong on his part to observe that the minor children should stay and share the bed rooms with their parents. The whole approach of the Additional Rent Controller was perverse.

3. Main controversy which has been agitated before me is with regard to the requirement of the younger son of the petitioner. The younger son of the petitioner is working in Federal Bank. Affidavits and counter affidavits have been filed. According to Mr. Ishwar Sahai, the son was transferred out of Delhi when the eviction petition was filed. However during the pendency of the proceedings he was again re-transferred to Delhi and he has filed an affidavit to that effect. This fact is vehemently contended by Mr. Anil Kumar - learned counsel for the respondent who has argued that son was not transferred to Delhi. Learned counsel for the respondent has also contended that his submission with regard to the enhancement of rent before the Additional Rent Controller did not find any favour with him.

4. When a son is dependent for his residence on his father which dependence is neither abnormal nor un-natural in the society in which we live, if such member of the family, be a son or grand son or a daughter for the reason of being in a job which is of transferable nature, is sent out of Delhi, his or her requirement can never be considered male fide until and unless it is shown that for all practical purposes such son or daughter or member of the family of the landlord has shifted his residence permanently with the intention of not coming back to his parents' home.

5. The whole approach in these matters has to be judged from aforesaid angle. Therefore, the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that the landlord did not require premises for his younger son is not correct.

6. There is no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent. The Additional Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the argument of respondent as no material was brought before the Additional Rent Controller in this regard.

7. Therefore, keeping in view the large size of the family and the accommodation available with the respondent, I hold that petitioner requires the premises bona fidely for himself and family members dependent upon him. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller. However, I grant six months ' time to the respondent to vacate the premises.

8. Civil Revision Petition is allowed.