Shri Banarsi Dass Sodhi vs Shri Om Parkash
2002 Latest Caselaw 1200 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Chopra, J.

1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ( herein after referred to as the "Act" only) is directed against an order dated 3.8.2001 passed by learned Additional Rent controller, Delhi by which the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act was allowed and an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the Trial Court Records.

3. The only ground on which the impugned eviction order stands challenged is that the plea of bonafide need, as raised by the respondent before the Trial Court, was not made out in as much as the evidence on record had shown hat after the issuance of eviction notice the respondent had converted two rooms and a kitchen on the ground floor of his house into three shops shown 'A' 'B' and 'C' in the site plan Ex. PW1/1. Out of these three shops one shop was being used by respondent's daughter Meena Sharam for running STD Booth while in the other shop, another daughter of the respondent Rachan Sharma was running a beauty parlour. It was also in evidence that in January 2000 the respondent had let out the third shop to a Halwai. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in an another Suit No. 51/98 between the petitioner and the mother of the respondent a site plan was filed a copy of which is Ex.R-1. In this site plan, respondent was shown to be in possession of six residential rooms besides other facilities. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the conduct of the respondent in converting the residential rooms and other portions into shops demolishes his case of bonafide need for residential use. It is also argued hat the respondent was falsely alleging that he had only one bed room whereas in Suit No. 51/98 it was categorically stated that he was having six residential rooms.

4. Counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Additional Rent Controller had property considered the pleas raised by the parties and had come to the conclusion that the respondent required the premises under the tenancy of the petitioner bonafide for his residential use. It is submitted that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the Act this Court should not interfere with the findings arrived at by learned Additional Rent Controller which were just, proper and in accordance with law.

5. After considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that a landlord who seeks eviction of a tenant on the grounds enumerated in Section 14(1)(e) of the Act is under a legal obligation to establish that he bonafide requires he premises in possession of his tenant for residential use of himself and his family members. The bonafides of a landlord-owner get seriously impaired if it is shown that he is not coming out with truth or there are circumstances to suggest that he is merely making a pretence of bonafide need to get rid of his tenant.

6. In the case in hand not only that Ex.R-1 which is a copy of the site plan filed by the respondent in another Suit No. 51/98 shows that the respondent was having many more rooms then those disclosed by him in the present petition, it is also clearly established on record that after serving an eviction notice upon the petitioner the respondent converted two rooms and one kitchen on the ground floor of the property in question into three shops thereby reducing the availability of residential accommodation for himself and his family. This conduct of the respondent seriously reflects upon his claim of bonafide need of the premises in question for residential use. The plea of bonafide need is not established by mere averments. It has to be established properly by leading trustworthy evidence. An owner/landlord cannot himself create paucity of residential accommodation and then plead that he has bonafide need for additional accommodation. A self created paucity of accommodation can never be the basis for relief under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.

7. The view taken by the learned ARC that as a father it was the duty of the respondent to settle his daughters and provide them some commercial space for earning their livelihood cannot be sustained for two reason. Firstly, the respondent's daughters, who were of marriageable age, were not necessarily going to be permanently settled in the property of their father, the respondent, in as much as it could be said as to whether they were going to continue or not with their vocation after their marriages. Secondly, if at all the respondent was so keen to settle his daughters and provide them shops he could have arranged the shops somewhere else and made available to himself and his family members the two rooms which were residential in nature and where available in the property in question. By converting his own residential rooms into shops and then calling upon the petitioner to vacate his tenanted premises the respondent in a way was acting smart and trying to get rid of the tenant who was in the premises since long. Therefore, the view taken by the learned ARC that for the sake of settling his daughters and making them earn their livelihood the respondent had a right to convert two rooms and a kitchen into three commercial shops for economic benefit of his daughters was absolutely arbitrary and not in accordance with law. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that the impugned eviction order passed by learned ARC was not in accordance with law and as such cannot be sustained.

8. In the result this petition is allowed and the impugned eviction order dated 3.8.2001 passed by learned ARC is set aside. The eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act is dismissed.