Shri Ram Niwas vs Shri Lakshmi Narain
2002 Latest Caselaw 1582 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Chopra, J.

1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" only) is directed against an order dated 26th April, 2001 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller in E.No. 212/1994 allowing the respondent's petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act and passing eviction orders against the petitioner in respect of suit premises at 256, Gali Prakash, Teliwari, Delhi. This order shall also dispose of the petitioner's application No. CM-967/2002 under Section 151 of the CPC for permission to bring on record subsequent events.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the petition and the application under Section 151 of the CPC filed by the petitioner-tenant, briefly stated, are that the respondent had failed a petition for eviction against petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act alleging that the petitioner was a tenant in suit premises but the said premises were required bonafide by him for himself and his family members for residential use. The respondent alleged that his family consisted of himself, his wife and two children who were school going at the time of filing the petition. The respondent-landlord also had mother and a married sister also who occasionally visited him and stayed with him on festivals and functions. It was stated that on other tenant in the property, Rajesh Kumar had assured to vacate one room and a kitchen in his tenancy on the second floor of suit property but even after the recovery of the said portion, the respondent would be short of accommodation and would require premises in possession of the tenant/petitioner.

3. The petitioner/tenant was granted leave to defend the eviction petition. He contested the eviction petition mainly on the ground that respondent was neither owner nor landlord of the premises in question and there was no privity of contract between the parties. It was also contended that the respondent was residing in House No. 491, Mahavir Bazar, Delhi and was keeping the first and second floor of the House No. 256. Gali Prakash, Teliwara, Delhi vacant and as such, the accommodation with him was already more than sufficient. The plea of bonafide requirement was stated to be sham and bogus and motivated by the reason that the rent being paid by the petitioner was too low. It was stated that other tenant Rajesh Kumar had already vacated the premises in his possession and handed over the same to the respondent.

4. The parties led their evidence before the learned ARC. After considering the evidence on record and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the learned ARC held that the respondent was the owner-landlord of the premises in question: premises had been let out for residential purpose; the respondent had no other alternative accommodation available to him and he was in bonafide need of the premises in question. Accordingly, the impugned eviction order was passed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has vehemently argued before this Court that till date, the respondent-landlord was residing in premises No. 491, Mahavir Bazar, Delhi and had not shifted to the suit premises and as such, he was guilty of concealment of material facts. It is also argued that the respondent had not come to the Court with clearing hands in as much as in the sale deed dated 8.8.1989 in respect of the suit premises in his favor, it was stated that vacant possession of the property was being handed over to the respondent which clause was falsely introduced as the respondent wanted and in fact tried to dispossess the petitioner by use of force. It is argued that the respondent-landlord had no bonafide need and he wanted to evict the petitioners the rent being paid by the petitioner was only Rs. 10/- per month.

6. In the application IA.No. 967/2002 under Section 151 CPC, certain documents were sought to be brought to the notice of the court to show that even up to 2001, the respondent-landlord was actually living in property No. 491, Mahavir Bazar, Delhi and the correspondence addressed to him at the premises in question was being returned back with the remarks that he was not living there.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has vehemently argued that this, exercising power under Section 25-B(8) of the Act, must refrain from interfering with the order passed by the learned ARC if the same is in accordance with law and is not perverse, unreasonable or erroneous. It is submitted that the premises No. 491, Mahavir Bazar, Delhi are under the tenancy of the mother of the respondent where the respondent has been living prior to the purchase of the suit property and even if letters are being received at the said address and letters at suit premises are being re-directed to the said address it would not show that the respondent does not require the premises in question for his residential use. It is argued that the respondent having no other alternative accommodation and being the owner of the premises in question is entitled to an order of eviction against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the averments in the Sale Deed do not negative the plea of bonafide need as raised by the respondent and even if he had tried to dispossess the petitioner forcibly, that would not go to show that he does not need the premises for residential use. It is submitted that the petitioner is having only two rooms on the first floor and one room on the second floor. The kitchen is on the second floor and there is no WC on the first or the second floor and the respondent and his family have to share WC with the petitioner-tenant at the ground floor. It is submitted that the respondent's son even is now of marriageable age and as such, he also requires sufficient accommodation to live comfortably with his parents after marriage. It is pointed out that even petitioner's witnesses RWs 4 & 5 could not satisfactorily prove on record that the respondent was not living in the premises in question. It is argued that the documents filed by the petitioner along with CM No. 967/2002 even if taken into consideration, do not negative the respondent's case of bonafide need for residential purposes.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the records of the case.

9. The law is well settled that the powers of the High Court under Section 25-B(8) of the Act are not as wide as those of an Appellate Court. The High Court must not appreciate or reappreciate the evidence on record merely because it is inclined to take a different view. In Shiv Kumar Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti, speaking for the Bench discussed in detail the parameters within which the High Court should remain while exercising jurisdiction under section 25-B(8) of the Act. His lordship held that the High Court has to test the order of the Rent Controller on the touchstone of 'whether it is according to law' and for this purpose alone the High Court may enter into reappraisal of evidence. In case the High Court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the Rent Controller is not according to law or wholly unreasonable or such that no reasonable person acting objectively could take such a view the High Court would be justified in substituting its view but not otherwise.

10. In the present case the respondent-landlord was living in a tented house and there is nothing on record to show that he is having any other alternative residential accommodation. A landlord living in a rented house of his mother has every right to insist that he wants to shift to his own house. Even if the plea of the respondent landlord regarding his stay in some portions of suit property had been found to be false and he had been found living with his other family members in the rented house at 491, Mahabir Bazar, Delhi that could not be a ground to hold that his need for the suit premises for residential use is not bonafide. The fact that the letters received in the name of the respondent are still being received at the address of 491, Mahabir Bazar, Delhi or the letters addressed to him on the suit premises are being re-directed to the aforesaid premises with the reports that he is not living in the suit premises is of no consequence as these facts do not show that the respondent's requirement of the premises is not bonafide. If on account of paucity of accommodation in the suit premises the respondent is continuing to use the tenanted premises of his mother also which are near-by, that is not a ground to reject his plea of bonafide requirement. The evidence on record satisfactorily shows that the respondent, his wife and his children who are of marriageable age are short of accommodation. Even after receipt of one room from another tenant Rajesh Kumar the respondent and his family require additional accommodation as the respondent's son is of marriageable age and he needs a room for his mother, sister and guests also. The only kitchen available in the house is on the second floor and the WC is available on the ground floor only which the respondent cannot conveniently share with the petitioner and his family. Therefore, there is no doubt about the genuine requirement of the premises in question by the respondent. The sale deed in favor of the respondent proves on record that he is the owner-landlord of the premises in question. The plea of the petitioner that he has no privity of contract with the respondent is wholly untenable.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent is not entitled to relief as claimed for the reason that in the sale deed in respect of the suit property it was falsely averred that the property in question was vacant and thereafter the respondent even tried to dispossess the petitioner from the suit premises by use of force. This Court is of the opinion that this plea cannot be sustained for defeating the respondent's case as in much as the respondent's conduct might not have been gentlemanly but it stemmed from this need only.

12. Learned Addl. Rent Controller after considering the evidence on record had come to the conclusion that the respondent was the owner landlord of the premises in question and he bonafide required the premises in possession of the petitioner for his residential use. It was also held that the respondent had not other alternative residential accommodation. The eviction order passed against the petitioner was in accordance with law. This Court does not find any infirmity with the view taken by learned ARC and as such is of the considered view that it is not a fit case in which this Court should interfere in exercise of powers under Section 25B(8) of the Act.

CM.No. 967/2002 stands disposed of.

13. The petition CR.No. 853/2001, however, stands dismissed.