Rishi Prakash vs Sh. G.D. Chopra & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4005 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                     Judgment reserved on: 24.09.2009
%                    Judgment delivered on: 06.10.2009

+                           RC.REV. NO. 04/2007

        B.K. SURI                                        .....Petitioner
                            Through:   Mr. Satish Sahai, Advocate

                       versus

        SH. G.D. CHOPRA & ORS.                           .....Respondent
                        Through:       Mr. Y.P.Bhasin, Advocate.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1.      Whether the Reporters of local papers may          No
        be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to Reporter or not?                 Yes

3.      Whether the judgment should be reported            Yes
        in the Digest?

                                JUDGMENT

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. I have heard learned counsels for the parties at length and I

proceed to dispose off this revision petition preferred by the

petitioner/tenant against the order of eviction dated 01.09.2006

passed by the learned Rent Controller Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal under

Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act) in E-90/2001.

2. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant in respect of one

room with bath and kitchen, in the annexe block on the ground floor of

property No.B-22, Greater Kailash Enclave-II, New Delhi- 110048 in the

year 1978. In the year 1994 the monthly rent settled was Rs.1200/-.

RCR No.04/2007 page 1 of 18

3. The original eviction petition had been filed by Sh. G.D.

Chopra, since deceased. During the pendency of the eviction petition

he passed away and was substituted by his widow and other legal

representatives namely his three sons and four daughters.

4. The original respondent Sh. G.D. Chopra filed the eviction

petition on the ground of bona fide requirement of the aforesaid

tenanted premises for the purpose of his and his family's residence.

The case of the respondent/deceased landlord was that his family

consisted of himself, his wife, his elder son Sh. S.M. Chopra, who was

60 years of age when the eviction petition was filed in the year 2000,

Sh. S.M. Chopra's wife, Sh. S.M Chopra's two children namely one son

and one daughter then aged 30 years and 32 years, the second son of

Sh. G.D. Chopra Sh. Ravi Chopra, then aged 53 years, having two

children - one son and one daughter, then aged 18 and 16 years, the

third son of Sh. G.D. Chopra namely Ram Chopra, his wife and two

children then aged 10 years and 8 years, one married daughter Smt.

Urvashi M. Singh having three daughters - then aged 38 years, 36

years and 26 years, second married daughter Smt. Snehlata Nagpal

having three children - one son and two daughters aged 40, 42 and 36

years, third married daughter namely Smt. Padma Kapoor having three

children - two daughters and one son then aged 17, 15 and 12 years

and the fourth daughter Smt. Asha having three children - one son and

two daughters then aged 16, 13 and 9 years. The respondent/landlord

disclosed that his son Sh. S.M. Chopra was residing in flat no. 4-D,

Evershine Apartment, Vikaspuri. The second son Sh. Ravi Chopra is

RCR No.04/2007 page 2 of 18 residing on the second floor of the suit premises bearing No.B-22,

Greater Kailash Enclave - II, New Delhi. The third son Sh. Ram Chopra

was then residing in MCD flats, Model Town in government

accommodation. Smt. Urvashi M. Singh, widow, was residing at B-14,

MIG Flats Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi. Smt. Sneh Lata Nagpal was residing

at Dehradoon, Smt. Padma Kapoor was residing at 15/92 Vikram Vihar,

Lajpat Nagar and Smt. Asha, the fourth daughter was residing at A-2

Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.

5. The respondent/landlord also produced a plan of the whole

house No.B-22, Greater Kailash Enclave, New Delhi wherein the

premises let out to the petitioner / tenant was shown in red colour.

The respondent claimed that the accommodation available with him

was two bed rooms and one small drawing cum dining room on the

ground floor and similar accommodation on the second floor which, as

aforesaid, is in possession of second son Sh. Ravi Chopra. The

deceased respondent disclosed that the rest of the accommodation in

the premises was in possession of the tenants.

6. The deceased respondent further disclosed that the daughters

and their families including children are regular visitors to the suit

premises. The daughters want to serve the respondent Sh. G.D.

Chopra and his wife then aged 88 and 70 years respectively. The sons

of the respondent also wanted to live with him as he was suffering

from old age disease and the sons want to serve their parents and Sh.

S.M. Chopra and Sh. Ram Chopra want to live in the suit premises. It

RCR No.04/2007 page 3 of 18 was further stated that Smt. Urvashi M. Singh is a widow and her

daughters are married and therefore, she could not live alone and

wants to live with the landlord. It was further stated that Smt. Sneh

Lata Nagpal's husband is old and she wants to live in Delhi for

treatment of her husband as he is suffering from mental disorder. The

respondent/landlord claimed that the accommodation already in his

possession was not sufficient for him and his family members. It was

further stated that the respondent's daughters regularly visit their

parents and when they want to stay overnight, there is no suitable

accommodation available with them.

7. After grant of leave to defend, the petitioner filed his written

statement. The petitioner submitted that all the children of the

respondent/landlord are suitably accommodated and that they do not

depend upon the respondent/landlord for the purpose of their

residence. The petitioner stated that except Mr. Ravi Chopra, who is

living on the second floor of B-2, Greater Kailash Enclave, New Delhi,

all the other children of the respondent/landlord are independent and

have bought their own houses in which they are presently living. It

was further stated that the children of the respondent/landlord hardly

visit the landlord and that they never come and stay with the landlord

even for a night. It was claimed that the entire ground floor of the built

up house on an area of more than 500 Sq. Yds. is with the landlord and

his wife, whereas the entire second floor of the house is with Sh. Ravi

Chopra, the only son living with the respondent/landlord. It was

claimed that the accommodation at the disposal of the respondent /

RCR No.04/2007 page 4 of 18 landlord is more than sufficient and that the eviction petition is mala

fide.

8. The petitioner further stated that the first floor and the second

floor of the annexe block of the building, in which the premises in

dispute are situated, were lying vacant and they had been just let out

about two years back. It was stated that the second floor of the

annexe block is occupied by two families whereas the first floor of the

annexe block had been let out to one doctor. It was contended that,

had the need of the respondent/landlord been bona fide, he could have

retained the said two units with him. The petitioner further contended

that the respondent / landlord did not intend to retain the premises

and his only intention was to sell the property in question. He had

entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the entire building with

one Mrs. Manorama Vaid who is presently in possession, occupation

and control of the entire first floor of the main building.

9. The petitioner did not dispute the number of children that the

respondent claim he had, their ages and their respective families.

However, it was stated that the children of the respondent constitute

their own independent families and that the children do not require to

come and shift with the respondent/landlord. It was stated that in any

case, if help or assistance is required by the respondent or his wife

then the son Mr. Ravi Chopra and his family, who are already living on

the second floor of the main building, are there to do the needful. The

petitioner also seriously contended that the purpose of letting was not

RCR No.04/2007 page 5 of 18 merely residential but the same was residential cum commercial,

inasmuch as, the premises had been let out to the petitioner not only

for the petitioner's residence but also to enable the petitioner to

establish a Yoga Therapeutic Centre.

10. As aforesaid, during the pendency of the eviction petition, the

original landlord Sh. G.D. Chopra passed away and was substituted by

his widow and children as his legal representatives.

11. In her examination in chief Smt. Raj Rani Chopra, the landlady

and widow of Sh. G.D. Chopra, inter alia, stated that her eldest

daughter Smt. Urvashi M. Singh aged about 65 years is a widow and

her daughters are married and she cannot live alone and wants to live

with the landlady. Smt. Urvashi M. Singh is a sick lady. She further

deposed that her daughters regularly visit her, and as and when they

want to stay during night, there is no accommodation available for

them. She further deposed that her two sons who are living outside

also want to live with her. In any case they are regular visitors and as

and when they want to stay overnight, they cannot do so. Sh. Ram

Chopra, and Sh. Ravi Chopra sons of the deceased respondent Sh. G.D.

Chopra were examined as PW-3 and PW-4. Both of them made

statements in consonance with the averments made in the eviction

petition.

12. In the cross-examination of the respondent's witnesses, it

came out that Sh. G.D. Chopra had entered into an agreement with

Mrs. Manorama Vaid in respect of the entire building. However,

RCR No.04/2007 page 6 of 18 according to the respondent, Smt. Manorama Vaid had breached the

agreement and she continued to occupy the first floor premises. The

litigation between the landlord and Mrs. Manorama Vaid is stated to be

still pending.

13. The learned Rent Controller by a detailed order allowed the

eviction petition by concluding that:-

(i) the respondent/landlord was the owner of the tenanted

premises;

(ii) the purpose of letting was residential;

(iii) the respondent/landlord did not own any other reasonable

suitable residential accommodation;

(iv) the respondent/landlord requires the tenanted premises for his

own residential accommodation and for his other family

members dependent upon him for their residential need.

Accordingly, the eviction petition was decreed in favour of the

respondents.

14. When this petition was preferred by the petitioner-tenant, this

Court on a very first date i.e. 24.01.2007 took note of the fact that as

per the lease agreement dated 30.10.1978 Exhibit PW1/R-1, the

purpose of letting was residence-cum-therapeutic centre. It,

therefore, appears that the notice was issued by the Court, inter alia,

for the reason that the Court prima facie saw merit in the petitioner's

submission with regard to the purpose of letting.

RCR No.04/2007 page 7 of 18

15. Though learned counsel for the petitioner does not give up his

argument that the purpose of letting was not merely residential but

residential cum commercial, I am of the view that in the light of the

decision of the Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs.

Vs. Union of India and Anr. AIR (2008) SC 3148, the issue with

regard to the purpose of letting has lost its relevance. The ground

under Section 14 (1) (e) can be invoked irrespective whether the

purpose of letting was residential or not, in view of the aforesaid

decision. I am therefore, not required to got into this issue.

16. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

that all the children of the respondent landlady are themselves

old/senior citizens and they are living in their respective houses,

except Sh. Ravi Chopra who is residing on the second floor of property

bearing no. B-21, Greater Kailash Enclave, New Delhi. He submits that

the children of the respondent landlady themselves have grown up

children who are in their 40s, 30s and 20s. They have all done well in

life and are well settled. He submits that it cannot be believed that

any of them would leave their own respective homes to come and live

with the respondent. He submits that, in fact, the respondent landlady

is hardly residing on the ground floor of the said property. She keeps

moving from one place to another and is living with her children and

their family members happily. He submits that the accommodation

with the petitioner is merely the garage portion and it is unthinkable

that the children of the respondent landlady would come and reside in

such accommodation even if the accommodation is vacated by the

RCR No.04/2007 page 8 of 18 petitioner. He further submits that the intention of the landlord was

never to retain the property in question. The original landlord Sh. G.D.

Chopra had entered into an agreement to sell for the entire house with

Smt. Manorama Vaid which shows that there was no bona fide need of

the respondent/landlord. Else he would not have agreed to sell the

entire house to Smt. Manorama Vaid.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

learned Rent Controller has failed to appreciate the significance of the

respondent/landlord having entered into an agreement to sell the

entire property and has misconstrued the endeavour of the petitioner

to bring the said agreement to sell on record as a challenge to the

ownership of the landlord in respect of the tenanted premises. He has

also placed reliance on various decisions and read out the decision of

the Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand

Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507 wherein the Supreme Court had explained

the expressions "bona fide need" and "genuine need". He submits

that apart from the mere expressed desire of the respondent landlady

and her children to come and live with her, there is no genuine need

made out by the respondent for any further accommodation either for

herself or for any of her children/grand children. Learned counsel for

the petitioner further submits that the respondent/landlady is also in

occupation of the first and the second floor premises in the annexe

portion. He submits that even if the respondent/landlady and her sons

and daughters require further accommodation, the said portion is

available to them for use.

RCR No.04/2007 page 9 of 18

18. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,

argues that the tenanted portion in occupation of the petitioner is not a

garage. He refers to the agreement Exhibit PW-1/R-1 dated

30.10.1978 which describes the let out portion as "one room with bath,

kitchen (annexe block) on ground floor". He further submits that the

petitioner is seeking to call upon this Court to re-appreciate the

evidence, which is not permissible in the exercise of the Court's

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For this

purpose he relies upon the decision of this Court in Sahu Basheshar

Dayal Bankers & Anr. Vs. Sujata R. Nath Decd. Thr. LRs 152

(2008) DLT 18.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the eldest

daughter of the respondent, Smt. Urvashi M. Singh is a widow with

three married daughters Smt. Urvashi M. Singh finds it embarrassing

and uncomfortable to live with her married daughters. Being herself

old and sick, she cannot live alone in her own premises which she

owns. Smt. Urvashi M. Singh, therefore needs to live with her mother

i.e. the respondent as both the respondent and Smt. Urvashi M. Singh

are old and sick and need each other's care, protection and company.

He further submits that the sons and daughters of the respondent,

even though the respondent/landlady is aged, cannot think of spending

one night with her in their parent's home on account of paucity of

accommodation. He submits that Sh. Ravi Chopra has two children

who are now 27 years (son) 25 years (daughter) and both of them are

unmarried and are of marriageable age. He submits that the plan of

RCR No.04/2007 page 10 of 18 the property in question has been exhibited during the trial and has

been admitted by the petitioner. According to the said plan there are

only two bed rooms with attached bath room on the ground floor apart

from drawing cum dining room and kitchen.

20. I may note that counsel for the petitioner did make an effort

to argue that there was a third room also available on the ground floor,

but it was admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this

stand was not taken by the petitioner before the learned Rent

Controller. Therefore, the landlord did not have the opportunity to

meet the said contention of the petitioner/tenant. In any event,

learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the so called

room admeasures only 6'x 8' and is in fact a store room. It cannot be

considered as another bedroom. It does not have a toilet attached to

it.

21. The plea of the respondent/landlord that the accommodation

on the second floor was also identical has also not been contraverted

by the petitioner.

22. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties,

perused the trial Court record and the case law cited by them, I am of

the view that there is no merit in this petition and the same deserves

to be dismissed. To begin with, I may consider the bare minimum

requirement of residential accommodation of the respondent/landlady

and her one son Sh. Ravi Chopra, who admittedly is residing on the

second floor of the property bearing No.B-22, Greater Kailash Enclave-

  RCR No.04/2007                              page 11 of 18
 II, New Delhi.    This is being considered on the premise that the

respondents' other two sons viz. Sh. S.M. Chopra and Sh. Ram Chopra

are independently settled and they do not need to live with the

respondent/ landlady on a permanent day-to-day basis in property

No.B-22. Similarly, I am assuming in favour of the petitioner that the

three married daughters of the respondent viz. that Snehlata Nagpal,

Smt. Padma Kapoor and Smt. Asha also do not require any part of the

premises bearing No.B-22 for their own residence on a permanent and

day-to-day basis. According to the petitioner, the premises with the

respondent/landlady on the ground floor and equivalent premises with

Sh. Ravi Chopra on the second floor is sufficient for their needs and Sh.

Ravi Chopra, his wife and children are present to take care of the

respondent/landlady. However, it cannot be denied that the other two

sons, namely, Sh. S.M. Chopra and Sh. Ram Chopra and their family

members and the three married daughters, as aforesaid, and their

respective family members are entitled to visit and to stay with the

respondent/landlady from time to time for the purpose of attending to

her and spending time with her in her old age. Even for such visits the

need for accommodation in property bearing No.B-22 has to be taken

into account.

23. The requirement of the respondent, considering that one of

his sons Sh. Ravi Chopra is residing with his family on the second floor

is : one room for Sh. Ravi Chopra and his wife, one room for the son of

Sh. Ravi Chopra aged 27 years, one room for the daughter of Sh. Ravi

Chopra aged 25 years, one room for the respondent/landlady, at least

RCR No.04/2007 page 12 of 18 one to two rooms for the other two sons and three married daughters

as aforesaid, of the respondent/landlady who may, from time to time,

visit the respondent/landlady and wish to stay with her, considering

her old age.

24. The requirement of the respondent's daughter Smt. Urvashi

M. Singh can also not be termed to be unreasonable, mala fide or

improbable. Admittedly, she is a widow in her late 60s with three

married daughters. It is well known that in the Indian context,

generally the widowed/separated mothers are not comfortable living

with their married daughters. The stand of the respondents that Smt.

Urvashi M. Singh finds it embarrassing and uncomfortable to live with

her married daughters and also that she cannot live alone in her own

flat at Sheikh Sarai cannot be said to be unreasonable or mala fide. It

is natural that a daughter in such as situation would be most

comfortable living with her old and aged mother. Consequently, her

requirement for at least one room on the ground floor with the

respondent landlady cannot be said to be unjustified or mala fide.

25. With regard to the accommodation allegedly available on the

first and second floor of the annexe portion, I may note that the plea of

the petitioner in his written statement with regard to the same was

that they had been left out by the respondent-landlord to tenants

about two years before the filing of the eviction petition. Moreover, it

has come in evidence of the respondent's witness, namely, Sh. Ravi

Chopra, PW-4, Sh. Ram Chopra, PW-3 as well as in the evidence of the

RCR No.04/2007 page 13 of 18 respondent Smt. Raj Rani Chopra, PW-5 that the accommodation above

the portion in occupation of the petitioner are servant quarters.

Considering the financial background and status of the respondent and

her family members, it is, in my view, very unreasonable for the

petitioner to expect that the respondent's children and grand children

should occupy the servant's quarters on the first and second floor of

the annexe portion. In my view, the same cannot be said about the

annexe portion as it consists of an independent unit having one room

(according to the petitioner two rooms), one kitchen and one bath

room. Considering the age of the respondent/landlady, the need for

additional accommodation is most pressing on the ground floor itself

where the respondent/landlady is residing. Considered thus, the

requirement of the respondent/landlady, her son Ravi Chopra and his

family is of at least 6 if not 7 bedrooms, apart from other areas such as

drawing-cum-dining room, storerooms and puja room. Admittedly, put

together, on the ground and the second floor, there are four bedrooms

apart from one drawing-cum-dining room each on the ground floor and

second floor and two kitchens, one on the ground floor and the other

on the second floor. It is not the case of the petitioner that the

respondent/landlady is messing with Sh. Ravi Chopra and, therefore,

there is need for only one kitchen. Since Sh. Ravi Chopra is residing on

the second floor, the need for a separate drawing-cum-dining room on

the second floor cannot also be questioned and no argument has been

raised by the petitioner in this regard. The respondent landlady is,

therefore, clearly short of at least two rooms for her residence and the

RCR No.04/2007 page 14 of 18 residence of her family members dependant upon her for residence.

26. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs.

Mahesh Chand Gupta (supra) does not advance the case of the

petitioner in any way. Apart from pointing out the meaning of the

expressions "bona fide need" and "genuine need" of the landlord,

learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out as to

how the need of the respondent landlady and her family members can

be said to be not genuine or bona fide. In fact, the said decision also

holds that the convenience and safety of the landlord and his family

members are relevant factors. The decision of the Supreme Court in

Smt. Sushila Devi Vs. Avinash Chandra Jain AIR 1987 SC 1150

relied upon by the petitioner is also of no avail in the facts of this case.

In that case the order of eviction was upheld by the High Court merely

because the tenant had been residing in the premises for 40 years

without applying its mind to the genuineness of the requirement of the

landlord under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. That is certainly not the

case in hand. The decision in S.J. Ebenezer Vs. Velayudhan AIR

1998 SC 746 also does not in my view, advance the case of the

petitioner. In my view, the landlady respondent has more than

sufficiently established her bona fide and genuine requirement for

accommodation. In this decision as well it was held by the Supreme

Court that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the court

cannot substitute its view in place of the views taken by the statutory

authority while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Dass Vs.                   Ishwar

 RCR No.04/2007                                  page 15 of 18

Chander AIR 1988 SC 1422 also does not advance the case of the

petitioner. As I have already noticed, there is no infirmity in the

approach of the learned Rent Controller or in the appreciation of the

evidence by him while deciding the eviction petition. In my view, the

desire of the respondent/landlady that her children and grand children

should stay with her occasionally, if not continuously, cannot be said to

be dishonest or unreal or not genuine. Considering the age of the

landlady, the said desire is not just a desire but a need.

27. In my view, there is no merit in the submission of the

petitioner that the learned Rent controller has not correctly

appreciated the petitioner's submission founded upon the agreement

to sell executed by late Sh. G.D. Chopra in favour of Smt. Manorama

Vaid. The learned Rent Controller has, in my view, rightly observed

that the said agreement to sell was entered into in the year 1990,

whereas the eviction petition had been preferred after a lapse of nearly

11 years. Had the transaction with Smt. Manorama Vaid gone through,

the respondent may have acquired some other accommodation.

However, since the said transaction did not fully go through, the

respondent / landlord could not be said to have intended to dispose off

the property and to own no other accommodation of his own. Merely

because he entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the entire

property way back in the year 1990, it could not be said that he did not

need the tenanted premises bona fide even after a lapse of 11 years.

Over this period the respondent and his wife both had aged, and as a

matter of fact, the respondent/landlord passed away during the

RCR No.04/2007 page 16 of 18 pendency of the eviction petition. I entirely agree with the observation

made by the learned Rent Controller in the impugned order as follows:

"..........Considering the accommodation in possession of the petitioner which consists of only living rooms and one drawing-cum-dining room and family of the petitioner including her widowed daughter and another married daughter alongwith her husband and other sons and their family members and their desire to live with the petitioner, Smt. Raj Rani in the twilight of her life and to serve her in her old age cannot be said to be malafide by any stretch of imagination, and this court has only to see, whether the desire to shift to the premises in question and to stay with the petitioner is bonafide or not. From the above discussion, it appears that the married sons and the married daughters, want to stay with the petitioner Raj Rani Chopra in twilight of her journey of life, which cannot be said to be malafide by any stretch of imagination. Accordingly, I hold that the accommodation available with the petitioner Smt. Raj Rani Chopra is insufficient for accommodating the aforesaid family."

28. In my view, the need of the respondent/landlady, got further

aggravated with the demise of her late husband. Being alone without

the company of her spouse, she needs constant care and attention of

her children and grand children. She needs sufficient accommodation

not only to accommodate the family of Sh. Ravi Chopra, who as

aforesaid requires at least three rooms for himself and his children, but

also to accommodate herself, her widowed married daughter, Smt.

Urvashi M. Singh, and her other children/grand children as and when

they desire to come and live with her and spend time with her

overnight. I find absolutely no merit in this petition and dismiss the

RCR No.04/2007 page 17 of 18 same.

29. I also find force in the submission of the learned counsel for

the respondent that it is not for this court in proceedings under Article

227 of the Constitution of India to re-appreciate the evidence and to

take a different view only because the court may be inclined to take

another view. I may, however, clarify that I am entirely in the

agreement with the judgment of the learned Rent Controller and I am

also not inclined to take a different view than the one taken by him.

30. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this

petition and dismiss the same with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.

                                             (VIPIN SANGHI)
                                                  JUDGE
OCTOBER 06, 2009
dp




 RCR No.04/2007                                page 18 of 18