Maj. Gen. A.K. Verma Avsm (Retd.) ... vs Narinder Singh
2004 Latest Caselaw 193 Del

JUDGMENT

J.D. Kapoor, J.

1.Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 5.2.2001 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the eviction petition of the petitioner seeking eviction sought on the petitioner was dismissed on the ground under Section 14B of the Delhi Rent Control Act which entitles the members of the armed forces to recover immediate possession of the premises on his either release from the service or retirement was dismissed, he has preferred this petition.

2. The eviction was sought on the ground that the petitioner has retired from the medical wing of Army where he held the post of Director General on 31.7.1995 having the rank of Major General.

3. The suit preemies were originally owned by petitioner's father, who left behind his wife, the petitioner and his daughter as his LRs and consequently they became the joint owners of the suit property. During the life time of the father of the petitioner, petitioner's sister had started living in the house. Since the petitioner wanted to make additions in the premises in question he required the government loan and to facilitate this the mother and the sister relinquished their share in favor of the petitioner, thereby making him the absolute owner of the property. However, sister of the petitioner continued and till date is continuing residing in the house in question though she shifted subsequently in the barsati floor. Prior to instant eviction petition, petitioner had also filed a petition on the ground of bonafide requirement as contemplated under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

4. During the pendency of said petition, the petitioner retired from the armed forces and preferred the instant petition under Section 14B of the Act. However, in the proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) against the tenant on the first floor, the tenant gave an undertaking to vacate the premises on 6.12.1996. The said premises were vacated and are still in possession of the petitioner as he occupied the same on its vacation though immediately after the retirement had shifted to barsati floor and shared the accommodation with his sister. The second petition under Section 14(1)(e) in respect of the ground floor was and is still pending when the instant petition was filed by the petitioner.

5. Petition under Section 14B of the Act was dismissed vide impugned order merely on the ground that the sister of the petitioner has no right to live in the barsati floor as her son has acquired accommodation in Hari Nagar and therefore, she should go and stay there. However, the son of the sister of the petitioner is occupying one room set in Hari Nagar.

6.The very fact that the sister of the petitioner has been residing in the premises since long and even during life time of the father of the petitioner and the petitioner had been living with her after his retirement when he had no other accommodation in the suit property she has become almost a part and member of the family of the petitioner for the purpose of residence and merely because her son has acquired accommodation in Hari Nagar consisting of one room accommodation does not mean that she should go and live in the place where she has no legal right to stay. Another reason provided by the learned ARC for dismissing the petition was that the petitioner was not able to show that sister and her husband are dependent on him. The first floor accommodation consists of one drawing cum dining room, one bed room and one puja room. The petitioner's family comprises of his wife, married son and son's children and has also one married daughter. Even if it is assumed that the sister of the petitioner and her husband are not members of the family for the purpose of residence still the accommodation is insufficient and unreasonable and not suitable keeping in view his status and the size of the family.

7.So much so, the additional requirement of the premises for his married sister who has been living all along in the said house and that too during the life time of his father and merely because relinquishment deed was executed by her in the name of petitioner to facilitate him to take government loan for making additional construction is justified and cannot be negated on the technical plea that they are not dependent on him for purposes of residing. Even otherwise, the respondent did not raise the plea that the sister of the petitioner has independent house to live or owns any other accommodation. It is her married son who owns such an accommodation and therefore, she cannot be forced to go and live with her son.

8.Thus from any aspect or any angle we may assess the requirement of the petitioner and the present accommodation with him, it is insufficient and therefore, the need of the petitioner is bonafide, Section 14(B) is a special provision which entitles the person to recover the possession of the tenanted premises who has been released or retired from the armed forces.

9. Provisions of Section 14B and 14C conferring right upon the landlord to get the premises vacated who has either retired or released from armed forces or from Central Government or the Delhi Administration were brought on the statute book for the benefit of those landlords who after the retirement have no place to live and to ask such persons to find out some other accommodation will be too much as having served armed forces or the Government for such a long period they should be allowed to live in their own house as it is their minimum and legitimate expectation. This being the special provision stated for the benefit of the retired persons and the requirement is not to be tested strictly on the parameters laid down and required for the ground under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRC Act.

10. Another factor that goes in favor of the petitioner is that he is a professional i.e. Doctor and therefore, he can have consultation practice and clinic in the residential house also. The Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand 1999 RLR 417 has held that ''if the landlord is a professional (like doctor), then he would need one or more rooms for a clinic and consultation with patients. If one or two family members of landlord die during lengthy litigation then it does not make much difference. If landlord wishes to live with comfort in his own house, then law does not compel him to squeeze tightly in the premises to protect tenant's occupancy.'' Petitioner is placed almost in the similar situation.

11.Taking overall view of the matter , I find the learned ARC misdirected himself in telling the sister of the petitioner to go and live with her son who had acquired one room accommodation somewhere in Hari Nagar and ask the petitioner to oust his sister from the house who has been living for more than 20-25 years and that too during the life time of his father and had, therefore, a very strong emotional bond was not justified. Any person who has married brother or sister who is in personal difficulty and cannot have any accommodation and has been residing with him for one reason or the other cannot be held as non-dependent for the purpose of residence. Only that person is not dependent for the purpose of residence, if he has an independent accommodation or house by virtue of being its owner.

12.Applying the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred case as well as keeping in view the size of the family of the petitioner and his status and professional qualification, the requirement of the suit premises is even otherwise bonafide though he has an additional special right of eviction of the tenant of the premises which is required for his own residence after retirement either from the armed forces or from the Central Government or the Delhi Administration.

13. In view of the forgoing reasons, I allow this petition and set aside the impugned order. In the result the eviction petition of the petitioner stands allowed followed by a decree of eviction.

14. The respondent is granted two months time to vacate the premises and hand over the peaceful and vacant possession failing which the petitioner will be entitled to seek execution of the decree.