V.K. Arora vs K.B. Madan
2000 Latest Caselaw 194 Del

ORDER

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The Respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition seeking the eviction of the Petitioner/tenant on the ground that the Respondent bona fide required the suit premises for occupation for himself and for members of his family dependent on him.

2. Eviction was sought under Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act). This clause reads as 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 or 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 (d) 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. As postulated by Section 25-B(4) read with Section 25B of the Act, the Petitioner filed an affidavit and sought leave to contest the eviction petition. The learned Additional Rent Controller heard both the parties and by his order dated 7th September, 1999 declined to grant leave to the petitioner to contest the eviction petition. The learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the affidavit filed by the Petitioner did not disclose "such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14".

4. It is this order of the learned Additional Rent Controller which is impugned by the Petitioner by filling a revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Act.

5. For the sake of convenience, Section 25-B(5), which is really the relevant sub-section, and Section 25B are reproduced below:

"25-B. Special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement.

(1) to (4) xxx xxx xxx

(5) The Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 14, or under Section 14-A.

(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this Section:

Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this Section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit.

6. Admittedly, the family of the Respondent (who is a Chartered Accountant) consists of himself, his wife and his two married sons (both having children). One of the sons is a practicing Advocate. The case set up by the Respondent in his eviction petition, and as accepted by the learned Additional Rent Controller, was that the Respondent required one room for himself and his wife. His two sons required two rooms each. The family also required a drawing-cum-dining room, making a total of six rooms. In addition, the Respondent required a room for his study and consultation with clients. Similarly, his son who is an Advocate required a study and consultation room for his clients. Finally, the family required a guest room for the Respondent's daughter and children who visit them very often. Consequently, the requirement of the Respondent was for nine rooms.

7. The learned Additional Rent Controller had appointed a Local Commissioner, on two separate occasions to determine the extent of accommodation in the possession of the Respondent. While one Local Commissioner stated that the Respondent was in possession of seven rooms, the other stated that the Respondent was in possession of eight rooms. The learned Additional Rent Controller proceeded on the basis that the Respondent was in possession of eight rooms, while his requirement was of nine rooms, and accordingly, he declined to grant leave to the Petitioner to contest the eviction petition.

8. In his affidavit, the Petitioner had disclosed, inter alia, that the Respondent has a commercial building being Madan House, 26, Nehru Place, New Delhi. This building has five floors and two basements. Two floors of this building are lying vacant and are in the possession of the Respondent's son. This averment is not denied by the Respondent.

9. It appears to me that the learned Additional Rent Controller's approach to the problem is not according to law. It is one thing to merely "require" premises for oneself; but it is another thing to "bona fide require" premises. To say that an Advocate "requires" a residential office is not the same thing as saying that he "bona fide requires" a residential office. Every Advocate would love to have an additional room for running a residential office, but not all of them can afford to because of constraints of space. It is common knowledge that many Advocates have chambers in the Court premises in the subordinate Courts, the High Court and the Supreme Court. Some of those who do not have such chambers, go in for chambers in other places, if they can afford to, while the rest, perhaps, operate out of their residence.

10. In the present case, the Respondent has a commercial building in Nehru Place (which is not too far away from his residence in Kailash Colony). This building has two vacant floors in the possession of the Respondent's son. In view of this can it be said that the Respondent and his son bona fide require rooms for residential offices? Or is it a mere requirement which, if fulfillled, would make life easier for the Respondent and his family? These, I think, are questions that the learned Additional Rent Controller ought to have addressed himself before coming to any conclusion that "the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him".

11. To my mind, the learned Additional Rent Controller proceeded on the basis of some formula but, in doing so, missed the legal nuance. What was considered by him was the mathematical requirement of the Respondent but what was overlooked was the bona fide requirement which is the essence of Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. The so-called bonafide requirement to the landlord needs to be inquired into in view of the facts disclosed in the affidavit of the Petitioner and adverted to above.

12. Under the circumstances, I set aside the impugned order dated 7th September, 1999 and grant leave to the Petitioner to contest the eviction petition.

13. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Rent Controller on 2nd March, 2000.

14. There will be no order as to costs.