Smt. Duru Manchandani vs Shri K.R. Manjani
2001 Latest Caselaw 779 Del

ORDER

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. A petition was filed by the landlord/Respondent under Section 14(1)(g)of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act') which has concurrently found favor with both the Courts below. The Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as 'the ARC') came to the conclusion that the premises were required bonafide for purposes of building/reconstruction, and that this activity could not be completed without the eviction of the tenant/Petitioner. The decision of this Court reported as Kailash Kumar vs. R.S. Raizada, 1972 RCR 433, was relied upon for the proposition that the interests of the tenant need not be considered under sub-section (g); and on Prem Chand alias Prem Nath vs. Smt. Shanta Prabhakar, , that the condition of the property need not be gone into where eviction is prayed for on the grounds of reconstruction. The ARC was satisfied that the Landlord was possessed of sufficient funds and that building plans had been got prepared/approved for the reconstruction. These findings and conclusions were approved by the RCT which dismissed the Tenant's appeal. In these circumstance, the ambit of enquiry and interference of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution can be called for only if these view of the Courts below are perverse or contrary to law.

2. Much emphasis was laid by Learned Counsel for the tenant on the fact that the Architect was not produced. He contended that the expected/estimated expenditure for reconstruction did not stand proved. Reliance was placed on Samsonite Corporation vs. Vijay Sales, 1998 IV AD (Delhi) 129, and Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad vs. Gandhi Shantilal Girdharlal and another, , for the argument that in the absence of the expert being produced his report was inadmissable. I am unable to give such inordinate weight age to the argument since, independent of such opinion, the Court could also have arrived at a sound conclusion on these points. It does not require an expert to depose on such mundane questions as the quantum of likely expenses for reconstruction. The ARC is knowledgeable enough to return an independent finding de hors the expert's report. As it is even in the case of handwriting experts, which is a very technical aspect when compared with construction estimates, it eventually falls on the Court to accept one of the two conflicting opinions. Both the Courts were satisfied that the Landlord had sufficient funds and I see no reason to disagree. In the two cases relied upon above, the Court could not possible have had the extremely technical knowledge required for a proper determination of the Act.

3. Learned Counsel for the Tenant also argued that the terrace rights belonged to her and not to the Landlord. It has come in evidence that there was no permanent staircase existed at the site, and that the roof could be accessed only by the use of a ladder. This point could have been decided by reference only to a written document as this is a valuable right which has been claimed by the Tenant. Both Courts have decided against the Tenant on this fact, no doubt keeping in view the categorical mention of the demised premises including the terrace/roof. As I see it, this is a most dishonest submission of the Tenant. Even if there is a presumption of the roof being part of the tenanted premises in a single storeyed house, this presumption has not been made good by the Tenant and in my opinion as well as that of the Courts below, has been adequately removed by the Landlord. The finding that the Terrace/roof was not a part of the tenancy is a factual conclusion that is not open to challenge in Article 227.

4. However, there is merit in the Tenant's submission that the time for reconstruction should not be left open-ended. However, the case does not require to be remanded on this ground. Although, Learned Counsel for the Tenant was unable to show that the Tenant had elected for repossession post the reconstruction, this question can be adequately covered as was ordered by the Apex Court in Nariman Point Building Services and Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others, JT 1988 (3) SC 28, In these circumstances, the tenant is directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the Respondent/Landlord in seven months, that is on or before 31.12.2001. The Respondent/Landlord shall complete the construction within two years of receiving possession. The Tenant shall have the first right to take ground floor on rent, on agreed rental or on standard rent to be determined by Rent Controller. The nature and use of the premises shall not be altered by either party.

5. The petition is disposed off in the above terms.