Delhi High Court
Ram Niwas Jain vs Bimal Prasad Jain on 14 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000 IVAD Delhi 442, 85 (2000) DLT 316
Author: M B Lokur
Bench: M B Lokur
ORDER
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Appellant filed a second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directed against the order dated 15th February, 1985 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in RCA No. 980 of 1984.
2. The case set up by the Appellant was that he was entitled to evict the Respondent and obtain possession of the suit premises in view of clauses (b), (c) and (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. Insofar as the case under clauses (b) and (c) are concerned, the same was given up and what has eventually survived is the case under clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. The same reads of follows :
"14. Protection of tenant against eviction -
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of
possession of any premises shall be made by any court of Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant :
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely :-
(a) to (b) xxx xxx xxx
(e) that the premises let for residential purpose are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation ;"
3. In his order dated 14th September, 1984, the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that from a perusal of the site plan Ex. AW-1/1, the Appellant was in occupation of one room measuring 17'x 7' 8" along with bath and courtyard on the ground floor. On the first floor, the Appellant had one room measuring 12' 8" x 8' 4", one room measuring 17' x 6' 8" (with an attached store-room) and another room measuring 9' 4" x 7' (used as a kitchen) along with toilet and covered area above the courtyard. In view of the accommodation available, the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the Appellant has sufficient accommodation in his possession and occupation and his requirement for additional accommodation was not bona fide. Accordingly, the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition filed by the Appellant.
4. The learned Tribunal, in a first appeal, confirmed the availability of the accommodation with the Appellant but came to the conclusion that apart from the Appellant and his wife, they had a daughter who had been divorced and who was living with them and was dependent on them. The learned Tribunal, however, was of the view that despite this, the accommodation that was available with the Appellant was quite sufficient.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant made his submissions on 7th February, 2000. He submitted that the entire approach of the learned Tribunal was incorrect. According to him, it is this incorrect approach which has led to the learned Tribunal upholding the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller. It was submitted that all that the Appellant has to show is that the premises were bona fide required for his residence as well as for the residence of those dependent upon him and the Appellant had succeded in doing this.
6. I am afraid I am not in agreement with learned counsel for the Appellant. The learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the family of the Appellant consisted of himself, his wife and a divorced daughter. At best, they required only two bedrooms for their residence. On the first floor itself, the Appellant was in possession of two rooms apart from a kitchen. In the ground floor, the Appellant was in possession of a huge room as well as bath and courtyard. The room (which was described by learned counsel as a baithak) could very conveniently be used by the Appellant as a drawing-cum-dining room.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the dimensions of the rooms are such that it was inconvenient to use the rooms on the first floor as bedrooms. I am afraid that this is hardly a ground for showing bona fide requirement of premises. At best, it can only be an expression of desire to live more comfortably. Learned counsel stated at the Bar that the Appellant had purchased the property and I have no doubt that the Appellant must have been aware of the dimensions of the rooms when he purchased the suit premises.
8. Under the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Court below.
9. The appeal is dismissed.
10. Record of the lower Court be sent back.
