Delhi High Court

Sewa Singh & Anr. vs Gopi Ram Bansal on 20 September, 2011

Author: P.K.Bhasin

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                               RC.REV.No. 65/2010
+                              Date of Decision: 20th September, 2011



      SEWA SINGH & ANR.                             .........Petitioners
!                                Through: Mr.J.C. Mahindroo, Advocate


                                 Versus

$      GOPI RAM BANSAL                                 ........Respondent
                                                        Through: None


       CORAM:
*      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
       to see the judgment?(No)
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No)


                              JUDGMENT

P.K BHASIN,J:

This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,

1958(hereinafter called 'the Act') has been filed by the petitioners-

landlords against the order dated 02.03.10 passed by the learned

Additional Rent Controller whereby the application filed by the

respondent herein seeking leave to defend the eviction petition filed

under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for his eviction from one shop on the

ground floor of property bearing no. 26, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur,

Delhi was allowed.

2. The petitioners are the owners of a building no. 26, Rameshwar

Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi which has five shops on the ground floor out

which four shops, in respect of which three eviction petitions were filed,

had been let out separately to three different tenants. The respondent

herein was let out shop no.5.

3. The petitioners-landlords, who are father and son, pleaded in the

eviction petitions that their family comprised of ten members comprising

of the parents of petitioner no.1, wife of petitioner no.2 and their one son.

It was claimed that though another son of petitioner no.1 had shifted to

Chandigarh on account of riots but he was also now desirous of settling

in Delhi keeping into account the educational prospects of his children. It

was also pleaded that petitioner no. 1 wanted his old parents also to live

with him because of their old age but the accommodation available with

them in property no. 26, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur was comprising of

only two bed rooms on the first floor and a drawing room, living/dining

room, one kitchen, WC and bathroom, one small store room. The second

floor was in occupation of a tenant and on the ground floor there was a

shop also with them. The petitioners-landlords pleaded that the

accommodation available with them was not sufficient for

accommodating the parents of petitioner no.1 who were separately living

in another house in Rameshwar Nagar, Azadpur due to paucity of

accommodation in property where the petitioners were living and also his

other son presently living in Chandigarh. As far as the petitioner no. 1 is

concerned, it was also claimed that he being an old person required the

accommodation on the ground floor.

4. The respondent - tenant had filed an application seeking leave to

defend the eviction petition on the ground that the requirement of the

shop under his tenancy by the landlord was not bona fide inasmuch as

they were already having sufficient accommodation for both of them and

the wife and son of petitioner no. 2. It was claimed that the petitioners

were also having four rooms on the rear side of the ground floor. It was

also claimed that since the parents of petitioner no. 1 were already

residing in another house near to the house in question the requirement of

additional accommodation for them was also not bona fide and the other

son of the petitioner no. 1 was already well settled in Chandigarh for

many years. It was also pleaded that the shop in question, in any event,

could not be used for residence. Ownership of the petitioners was also

challenged.

5. The learned Additional Rent Controller had come to the conclusion

in the impugned order, by which common order he had allowed all the

applications moved in the three petitions seeking leave to defend the

eviction petitions, that there was no dispute about the extent of

accommodation available with the petitioners on the first floor of house

No. 26, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur and as far as the plea of the tenant

that the landlord had four rooms on the ground floor also is concerned, it

was not acceptable. The petitioners' case was that they required one

room for petitioner no. 1 on the ground floor because of his old age and

medical problems, one room for petitioner no. 2 and his wife, one room

for their son , one room to be used as study room by the grandchildren

and one room for pooja. The trial Court has accepted this requirement to

be bona fide. The petitioners also claimed one room for guests and one

room for the son of petitioner no. 1 who was living in Chandigarh and

who, even according to the trial court, had every right to visit his

parents. The trial court, however, accepted the requirement of one room

only for the guests as well as the son staying at Chandigarh. The case of

the petitioners that the parents of the petitioner no.1 who were over

eighty years of age also needed to be live with their son has not been

accepted by the trial court on the ground that they were not dependant on

their son for their residence. Thus, the learned Additional Rent Controller

concluded that the petitioners were having only two bedrooms, one

drawing room and one dining room with them on the first floor and one

room (shop no.1) on ground floor while their requirement was of five

rooms i.e. one room for the petitioner no.1, one room for the petitioner

no.2 and his wife and one room for their child , one room to be used as a

pooja room and one for the guests. Still, leave was granted to the

respondent to contest the eviction petition on the ground that the

landlords were claiming the possession of four shops from three

different tenants while their requirement was not for all the four shops

and since it could not be decided at the stage of disposal of leave to

contest application as to which of the three shops should be got vacated

and from which of the three tenants leave deserved to be granted in all

the three petition. This is what the learned Additional Rent Controller

observed in the concluding para of the impugned order:-

"In the present case, the total suit shops involved are four in number all measuring about 12 ft 9 inch x 7 ft 9 inch and since the requirement of the petitioner as discussed hereinabove not appears to be for the entire suit shops and it is coardinal principle of law that in such a situation leave to defend cannot be granted by pick and choose and therefore, in the circumstances, the bonafide requirements as stated by the petitioner's requires evidence in respect of their additional accommodation and in this regard reliance can be placed upon judgment reported in 2000 JT 3 397 titled as 'Santosh Devi Soni vs. Chand Kiran.'

6. Feeling aggrieved by the grant of leave to contest to the

respondent-tenant, the petitioners-landlords filed the present revision

petition.

7. The respondent was served with the notice of this petition but he

chose not to enter appearance and, therefore, I had heard the counsel for

the petitioners-landlords only.

8. In my view, this petition deserves to be allowed .The learned trial

Court should also have found the requirement of one room to be used as a

study room by the grand-children of the petitioner no.1 and one room for

the old parents of the petitioner no.1 as bona fide. Even though the

parents of the petitioner no. 1 were living separately but considering the

fact that they were more than eighty years old the claim of petitioner no.1