Shri G.C. Khanna And Ors. vs Electric Construction And ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 561 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Petitioners are the landlords. Respondent is the tenant.

2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 3.6.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing an application dated 12.1.2006 filed by the petitioners seeking permission to lead evidence pertaining to subsequent events which have transpired during the pendency of the eviction petition.

3. Request has been declined.

4. Reason for declining the request is that on an earlier occasion, being aggrieved by not allowing eviction sought for on ground of bona fide requirement, the landlords had filed a revision petition registered as C.R. No.3/2000. The same resulted in the dismissal order being set aside followed by a remand containing a direction to the Rent Control Tribunal to re- decide the matter after dealing with the contentions urged by the landlords with regard to the availability of alternative suitable residential accommodation at the back portion of property No. 7, Sri Ram Road, Delhi.

5. In passing the impugned order, learned Rent Controller has held that the order of remand dated 10.3.2004 limits the scope of inquiry at the remanded stage and the scope of inquiry cannot be expanded.

6. Being relevant, order of remand dated 10.3.2004 in C.R. No.3/2000 may be reproduced. It reads as under:

The grievance of the petitioners who has filed eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is that the learned ARC has not taken into consideration the fact that the so called alternative accommodation available with the petitioners bearing No. 7, Sriram Road (back portion) which was got vacated from S.K.Mehra way back in the year 1990 was in dilapidated condition and it was on this property that the petitioner had constructed two portions, one part of which was let out to the respondent and other portion to Minerva Talkies.

It is contended that the learned ARC fell in grave error in holding that this accommodation was available with the petitioner as an alternative suitable residential accommodation at the time when the instant petition was filed. Since the aforesaid contentions involve substantial question of facts and can be determined by way of evidence or inspection report submitted by the Local Commissioner in the instant proceedings as no finding can be returned about the availability of suitable residential accommodation without dealing with the aforesaid contentions and pleas of the petitioners. In order to determine this, learned ARC shall allow the petitioner to adduce further evidence in this regard with the right of rebuttal to the respondents.

In the result, petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside with direction to the learned ARC to redecide the matter after dealing with the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners with regard to the availability of the alternative suitable residential accommodation bearing No. 7, Sriram Road (back portion) at the time of filing of instant petition and by taking into consideration the report of the Local Commissioner in respect of the said property. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 22nd March 2004 for the aforesaid purpose. Since the eviction petition was filed in the year 1983, the trial court shall positively decide the matter within six months.

Trial court record, if received, be sent back forthwith.

7. Noting decisions on the point that subsequent events which have transpired during pendency of the eviction petition namely births and deaths in the family can always be brought on record as long as an eviction petition is pending consideration, the learned Rent Controller, being of the opinion that his hands were tied due to the language of the remand order has construed the legal position as under:

The proposition of law laid down in aforesaid judgment is not in dispute. However, this judgment is not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, as the matter has been remanded back, as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court dated 10.3.2004 with the directions to allow the petitioners to adduce further evidence in this regard with the right of rebuttal to the respondent and it has been directed that the matter be decided afresh after dealing with the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the availability of alternative suitable residential accommodation bearing No. 7, Sriram Road, as the directions of the Hon'ble High Court are clear, while remanding back the matter vide order dated 10.3.2004, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of the remand order, as per the directions of the superior court and only the evidence, which can be accepted and filed on the record by the petitioners is pertaining to the availability of suitable alternative accommodation and the petitioners cannot be allowed to enlarge the scope of enquiry by filing an affidavit regarding the change in the family of the petitioner due to elapse of time and he cannot be allowed to re-open the entire case beyond the directions contained in the order dated 10.3.2004 of Hon'ble High Court. Accordingly, the application of the petitioners is also no sustainable for the aforesaid reasons. The same is also dismissed.

8. Shri Valmiki Mehta, learned senior counsel for the respondent urged that the past events show that different portions of the property bearing No. 7, Sri Ram Road, Delhi was earlier on let out by the petitioners to different tenants. Invoking Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, namely, pleading bona fide requirement, landlords got the tenants evicted but did not occupy the vacated portions even for a single day. Front portion of the property was demolished. 2 independent units were constructed. Both were let out. One was taken on lease by his client. As regards the back portion, it is stated that from time to time the same was let out to various tenants and since November 1981, the same was lying vacant. It was urged that in the first round of litigation, learned Rent Controller noted the aforesaid facts of constant letting of the different portions of the property at 7, Sri Ram Road, Delhi as also vacant portion towards the rear being available with the landlords. Counsel urged that since landlords urged in the Civil Revision Petition No. 3/2000 that the back portion was in a dilapidated condition, limited remand made by this Court vide order dated 10.3.2004 restricted the scope of inquiry only to the issue whether the back portion was habitable or not.

9. Subsequent events sought to be introduced by the landlords are disclosed in the affidavit of G.C.Khanna, petitioner No. 1. In his words, petitioner No. 1 described the same as under:

That G.C.Khanna (HUF) is the owner of the entire property at 7, Sri Ram Road, Delhi-54. The area of entire property is 2100 sq.yards. Property consists of front portion on area of 1000 sq.yds. and rear portion having area of 1100 sq.yds. The said property was originally constructed in 1911. The property became dilapidated, as such the front portion was demolished and two flats were constructed in 1970. The said flats are occupied by tenants, one of whom is the respondent. The rear portion is lying in a dilapidated condition and is not safe for occupation and living. It has not been occupied by anyone since 1981. The said portion has outlived its life and can collapse anytime. The walls, floors and roof are cracked and require demolition.

The HUF consists of the following family members who live at 1, Sri Ram Road, Delhi.

1. G.C.Khanna Karta aged 77 years.

2. His wife Tej Khanna aged 76 years.

3. His son Arun Khanna aged 50 years.

I G.C. Khanna M.A. am Chairman of Fast Foods Pvt. Ltd., Senior partner of The Exchange and President of Swami Ramtirth National Education Society, Delhi.

My Income Tax Return for assessment year 2005-06 has been filed showing total annual income of overRs. 9 lacs.

My wife Mrs.Tej Khanna M.A. is Director of Fast Foods Pvt. Ltd. and Vice President of Association for Social Health in India. Her Income Tax Return 2005-06 filed showing total Annual Income ofRs. 3.45 lacs.

My son Arun Khanna (UK Diploma Holder) aged 50 years Mg. Director, Fast Foods Pvt. Ltd. and Chairman of All Indian Mfrs. Organization, UP.

This Original Income Tax Return of 2005-06 ofRs. 3.39 lacs showing Annual Income has been filed.

Besides the following dependent family members also live at 1, Sri Ram Road.

My daughter in law Mrs.Monica Khanna B.A. aged 43 years, Partner in The Exchange Agencies, Original Income Tax Return of 2005-06 ofRs. 1.45 lacs Annual Income is filed.

My grand daughter Puja Khanna B.A. aged 21 years is a post graduate student-

Original Birth Certificate DOB 29/10/84 attached.

Copy of B.A. Honors Examination 2005 attached.

Copy of Receipt of Amity Business School Noida attached.

My second grand daughter Aradhana Khanna is aged 19 years.

Original Birth Certificate DOB 13/8/86 attached.

Copy of Amity Business School Noida receipt attached.

My grand son Adhish Khanna is over 17 years.

Original Birth Certificate DOB 19/3/88 attached.

Copy of CBSE Examination 2003 Certificate attached.

Copy of Receipt of Indian Institute of Planning and Mgt. attached.

All the above grand 3 children are college students.

My other immediate family members who live near-by are:

1. My daughter Kiran Kapur B.A. aged 48 years.

2. Her husband Deepak Kapur B.Sc. aged 51 years Vice President, Chambal Fertilizers.

3. Her son Samir Kapur (US qualified) aged 21 years, presently working abroad.

4. Her daughter Natasha Kapur college student aged 18 years.

5. My younger daughter Madhuri Mehra B.A. aged 42 years, employed as a Teacher.

6. Her husband Rajeev Mehra B.A. aged 44 years, Businessman.

7. Her son Sahil Mehra school student aged 16 years.

8. Her second son Arman Mehra school student aged 9 years.

These two daughters along with their families often come and stay with me as and when they desire.

The flat at 1, Sri Ram Road, Delhi, which I own in my individual capacity, consists of the following accommodation:

2 Bedrooms and 2 Toilets, 1 study-cum-office room, Drawing cum Dining room, Kitchen, Verandah, servant quarter and garage.

This said accommodation is not suitable/sufficient for myself, my wife, my son, his wife and three college going grand children, besides my two married daughters and their families, leaving aside other close relatives and friends.

Due to paucity of accommodation great deal of tension constantly prevails with my son and his wife who have no right in these premises, whereas he is legally entitled to live in the suit premises. Two adult grand daughters and third grandson age over 17 years are not able to pursue their education in a proper manner. They have no privacy and cannot entertain any friend at home. At night they huddle together and sleep in the drawing room. Since filing of this case 22 years ago six adult members and the youngest grand son over 17 years old have now to manage in two bed rooms.

10. Suffice would it be to note that the eviction petition was filed in the year 1983. Events attempted to be brought on record by the landlords are of the infants becoming major. Some of them getting married and having children who not only were born during pendency of the eviction petition but became adults. In a nutshell, requirement of the extended joint family was sought to be projected.

11. I need not note the plethora of authorities which permit Courts to take cognizance of subsequent events which have transpired during pendency of eviction petition, more so when eviction sought is predicated on the plea of bona fide requirement. Suffice would it be to note that in relation to claims of bona fide requirement it is the duty of the Court to test the bona fide requirement as on date when the matter is being decided.

12. Reason thereof is that due to docket explosion in this country, considerable time elapses between the date when eviction petition is instituted and its final decision. Births and deaths take place in the family of the landlord. Deaths go to the benefit of the tenant, in that, removal of a member from the family of the landlord diminishes a requirement. Births go to the benefit of the landlord as the same results in an increase in the requirement of the family. Similarly, needs of the growing children and in particular on their attaining adulthood, to have separate rooms for themselves becomes important. Marriage of a child and in particular a male would further increase the demand for space within the family. Daughters getting married and moving out would reduce, to some extent, the requirement of the family members.

13. If life is not static, so cannot be the law. As the saying goes, the rule of law would lose its meaning if it does not run close to the rule of life.

14. As a proposition of law, it is clearly decipherable that as long as an eviction petition is pending, each and every subsequent event which is relevant for a proper adjudication of rival claims can always be brought to the notice of the Court. Indeed, it is the duty of every Court to take it on record.

15. The only point which needs a little attention in the instant case is whether the remand order curtails the power of the Rent Controller in deciding the limited issue pertaining to availability of certain space at the rear of the property bearing No. 7, Sri Ram Road, Delhi?

16. No doubt, while remanding the matter to the Rent Control Tribunal, this Court, vide order of remand dated 10.3.2004, has called upon the Rent Control Tribunal to consider whether the back portion is available as suitable for residence. But, with reference to what facts would the Tribunal consider the availability thereof, if ultimately found to be habitable?

17. Obviously, in relation to the family members of the landlord.

18. Thus, meaningfully read, order of remand does not require, least of all mean, that the landlord would be precluded from bringing to the notice of the Tribunal the change in family circumstances and the need of the growing family. Inextricable linked to the inquiry pertaining to the bona fide requirement of a landlord are the twin factors, namely habitable accommodation available with the landlord and the extent of the family of the landlord.

19. Therefore, the petition stands disposed of quashing the impugned order dated 3.6.2006. The application filed by the landlords seeking placing on record subsequent events with right to lead additional evidence pertaining thereto is allowed. Affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the application is directed to be taken on record.

20. Since the eviction petition has remained pending since the year 1983, it is hoped and expected that the Rent Controller would take extra endeavor to expedite trial thereof and try and pronounce a decision as expeditiously as possible.

21. No costs.