Rajinder Kumar vs Vinod Kumar
2012 Latest Caselaw 1950 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                        C.R.P. 808/2011


+                               Date of Decision: 21st March, 2012

#      RAJINDER KUMAR                                 ....Petitioner
!                                Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate

                                Versus

$      VINOD KUMAR                                   .....Respondents
                                                      Through: None.


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

                               JUDGMENT

P.K.BHASIN, J:

This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(hereinafter called 'the Rent Act') had been filed by the petitioner-landlord against the order dated 13.03.2001 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the petition filed by him under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act for seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the tenanted premises was dismissed.

2. The undisputed facts of the case as culled out from the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them during the trial are that the respondent is a very old tenant in respect of the tenanted premises.

3. The petitioner-landlord had pleaded in the eviction petition, which was filed in the year 1995, that he was living ina one room only with his family comprising of his wife and three school going sons. He had three sisters also who though were living separately but used to visit and stay with him during their visits to his house. The accommodation of one room only with the petitioner was quite insufficient for his family.

4. The respondent-tenant had contested the eviction petition after obtaining leave from the Additional Rent Controller to contest the same. His main defence was that the petitioner was having in his possession five rooms on the ground floor and two on the first floor and so the accommodation already available with his landlord was sufficient for his family and his requirement of the tenanted premises under his tenancy on the first floor was not bona fide.

5. The petitioner-landlord in his replication had claimed that he had sold about 35 sq.yds. area of his property to one Laxman Singh(who had been examined by him as AW-1) and that Laxman Singh had constructed the five rooms which the respondent was claiming to be in his possession.

6. The learned Additional Rent Controller after examining the evidence adduced from both the sides dismissed the eviction petition after observing that the petitioner-landlord's requirement of the tenanted premises comprising one room and a kitchen on the first floor of the main house was not genuine.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-landlord filed this revision petition. Though the respondent had entered appearance through his counsel but when this petition was taken up in due course for final hearing respondent's counsel did not appear on many dates and finally the counsel for the petitioner-landlord only was heard.

8. In the impugned order it had been observed by the Additional Rent Controller that the respondent-tenant had not denied the ownership of the petitioner-landlord in respect of the tenanted premises and that the controversy between the parties revolved around the accommodation actually available with the petitioner-landlord. Regarding the five rooms which the respondent-tenant was claiming to be with the petitioner-landlord the case of the petitioner that he had sold some area of his house to one Laxman Singh in the year 1995 and those five rooms had in fact been constructed by that Laxman Singh and heonly was occupying the same was rejected by the learned Additional Rent Controller for the reason that neither the petitioner nor AW-3 Laxman Singh had proved any document of sale executed between them.

9. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner- landlord that the petitioner-landlord had filed an eviction petition had been filed against the respondent's brother also in respect of one room on the first floor under his tenancy and in that petition eviction order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller and the revision petition filed against that order by the respondent's brother in this Court had been withdrawn by him and he had got time to vacate sometime in the

year 2001. Counsel showed a copy of that eviction order to me and submitted that reference was being made to that order since in that case also a plea was taken by the respondent's brother that Laxman Singh had not been sold any part of the house and the Additional Rent Controller in that case also observed that no proof was given in that regard by the landlord i.e. the petitioner herein, but still he had passed an eviction order assuming that there was no sale transaction between the petitioner and Laxman Singh and by observing that even with the availability of those five rooms the petitioner's requirement of the accommodation with the tenant was bona fide. Learned counsel contended that since both the eviction petitions were filed on same facts and same requirement was projected in both the petitions by the petitioner-landlord eviction order against the respondent-tenant should be passed in the present case even if the conclusion of the Additional Rent Controller arrived at in this case also that the sale transaction between the petitioner-landlord and Laxman Singh had not been established as it has already been concluded in the other eviction case that the requirement of the petitioner was of seven rooms. The learned counsel had also relied upon these judgments of this Court: "Mohd. Shammim Siddqui versus Gurdayal Wadhwa :159(2009)DLT 670; Sudesh Kumara Soni Verus Prabha Khanna:153(2008) DLT 652; Gurdiyal Singh Versus Raghbir Singh:1998(47)DRJ."

10. However, I do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord that eviction order should be passed in this case since it was passed in the case against respondent's

brother. The revisional jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25(8) of the Rent Act, which had been invoked by the petitioner-landlord here, is quite limited and even the learned counsel for the petitioner- tenant did not dispute that. The High Court is expected to interfere with the order of the Rent Controller only if it feels satisfied that the Rent Controller's order under challenge was not in accordance with law and its reasoning in the order passed by him was perverse. In the present case, the petitioner-landlord had filed the eviction case on the ground that he was living only in one room accommodation and that five rooms which his tenant was claiming to also available with him were in owned and possessed by AW-3 Laxman Singh. That stand taken by him was not accepted by the learned Additional Rent Controller for the reason that there was no documentary proof adduced by the petitioner or even by Laxman Singh to substantiate that plea. This Court finds no perversity in that conclusion of the learned Additional Rent Controller and in fact even the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord had not claimed so. When asked as to why documentary proof of sale could not be adduced even though it was claimed to be available the counsel for the petitioner-landlord had no answer. So, with the acceptance of the defence plea of the respondent-tenant that at the time of filing of the eviction petition against him the petitioner-landlord was having with him six rooms, including the five rooms which the petitioner was claiming to have been constructed by Laxman Singh, the only conclusion has to be that the eviction proceedings were initiated on a false plea of availability

of one room only with the landlord and that fact itself was sufficient to disentitle him from getting any relief from the Court.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not claim before me that if in the year 1995 the petitioner was having six rooms with him, as was being claimed by the tenant and as has now been held to be so even by the Controller, even then that much accommodation was insufficient for his family comprising himself, his wife and three small sons and even if his sisters also used to come and stay with him. Subsequently, even the room let out to the respondent's brother had also become available with the petitioner-landlord. Thus, the requirement of seven rooms also which had been found to be there in the case against respondent's brother, though that much requirement was not even pleaded by the petitioner-landlord himself, also stood satisfied long time back.

12. In view of the aforesaid conclusion none of the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner-landlord, all of which were rendered on the facts of those cases and which were totally different from the fact situation in this case, is of any help to the petitioner- landlord.

13. This revision petition is, therefore dismissed.

March, 21 2012                                      P.K.BHASIN, J