Baman Rao vs Shiv Rani & Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 5706 Del

*           THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                     R.C.REV. 483/2012

                                           Date of Decision: 21.09.2012

BAMAN RAO                                         ...... Petitioner
                           Through:     Mr. Naushad Ahmad Khan,
                                        Advocate.


                                 Versus



SHIV RANI & OTHERS                                   ...... Respondents

                           Through:


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 21.3.2012 of Addl. Rent Controller (ARC), whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, in the eviction petition filed against him by the respondents, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of one room on second floor measuring 10' x 10' of the premises No. 2893, Chehlpuri, Kinari Bazari, Delhi. His eviction was sought by the respondents on the

ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises for themselves. The requirement that was projected by the respondents is of one room and one store for the respondent No. 1 Shiv Rani, who is aged about 77 years; one room for her son Rajinder and his wife Rekha; one room for her grandson Sidharth and his wife; two rooms for her married grand- daughters, who frequently come and stay with them; one room for respondent No. 3, who is the widow of her son late Vijay Kumar; one room each for her three unmarried sons Anand, Uttam and Kishan (respondents No. 4 to 6). In addition, the accommodation is also stated to be required for all of them for stores, kitchens, pooja rooms, as also drawing room and guest room. In this way, the respondents stated to be requiring at least nine rooms, beside other accommodation of kitchen, latrine, bathroom, stores etc.

3. The petitioner filed leave to defend application, disputing the respondent No. 1 Shiv Rani to be the owner of the premises. It was alleged that the respondent No. 1 Shiv Rani is not the owner of the suit premises, but, was only collecting the rent and issuing rent receipts. It was alleged that the respondents have sold two shops on the ground floor of the premises in the year 2008 and some portion of the first floor was being used for commercial purposes to create paucity of accommodation. It is alleged that one room on the first floor was let out by the respondents to one S.K.Malhotra in the month of March, 2003 and other adjoining room in the month of January, 2005. It is alleged that if the respondents required the accommodation for their

residence, they would not have sold two shops on the ground floor in 2008, and not let out two rooms on the first floor in 2003 and 2005. It is also alleged that one room on the second floor has been recently vacated by a tenant Banwari Lal, which is available with the respondents. It is next alleged that the respondents have two alternative properties in Delhi, which are available with them for residential purposes. It is next alleged that the tenanted premises in possession of the petitioner is very small and, being less than 100 sq. feet, cannot be used for residential purpose.

4. The learned ARC vide the impugned order dismissed the application for leave to defend and passed eviction order. The same is under challenge in the instant petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised similar contentions, which were raised before the learned ARC, and which have been dealt with by him in the impugned order. With regard to the ownership, it is admitted case that the suit premises was let out to the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 Shiv Rani by virtue of an agreement dated 6.2.1981. As per the respondents, the premises in question was owned by the husband of the respondent No. 1 Shiv Rani and after his death, she along with her two sons Rajinder and Vijay became the owner of the property by virtue of registered will dated 7.8.1976. It is the petitioner's own case that the respondent No.1 Shiv Rani was collecting rent from him. It is nobody's case that if the respondents are

not the owners of the premises, then, who else is the owner. Undisputedly, no-one has ever set up any claim of ownership or demanded rent from him.

6. In Pratibha Devi vs. T.V. Krishnan 2001 AIR SCW 4661, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is a settled position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. While deciding the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord, it is futile and irrelevant to make an inquiry as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. The concept of bona fide necessity should be meaningfully construed so as to make the relief granted to the landlord real and practical. In Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co [2000]1SCR77, it was held that it is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter.

7. The plea that the respondents had sold two shops on the ground floor in the year 2008 and had let out one room on the first floor in 2003 and one room in 2005, are not in dispute. The respondents themselves had stated that they had sold two shops on the ground floor to the old tenants to fulfill their financial needs and requirements at that point of time. They have also admitted having let out one room on the first floor in 2003, but stated that it was a small kolki, which was

not required at that point of time, and was so let out. It was however, denied that any room on the first floor was ever let out in the year 2005. The learned ARC observed, and rightly so, that two rooms had been let out to old tenants due to financial needs in the year 2008 and a small room kolki on the first floor that was let out in 2003, cannot be a ground to doubt the bona fide requirement of the respondents at the time of the filing of the eviction petition in 2011. Notice can be taken of the fact that the respondent No. 1 has large family comprising of her married son Rajinder, the widowed wife of her other son late Vijay Kumar and her (respondent No.1) three unmarried grandsons Anand, Uttam and Kishan. At the time when two shops on the ground floor were sold in the year 2008 and one room on the first floor was let out in 2003 or even if one room was let out in 2005, the respondents may be under financial constraints and also not requiring those portions of the premises at that point of time. Now, the aforesaid three grandsons being grown up and being aged about 22 to 29 years, with the passage of time, the requirements have increased. One cannot lose sight of the fact that all the three grandsons are now of marriageable age and in due course, their requirements of accommodation are likely to further increase, not only for residence, but also for commercial purposes.

8. The plea that the area of the tenanted premises was less than 100 sq. feet, and so was not habitable for residence for the respondents, is extraneous and misconceived. No doubt, a room of size of less than

100 sq. feet cannot be said to be reasonable for residence, however, where a landlord may not have any room of 100 sq. feet, but of the lesser size, it does not mean that he would not reside therein, just because a room of less than 100 sq. feet cannot be said to be habitable residence. In a situation like this, the landlord may even squeeze to room of any size for meeting his residential requirements. This would all depend upon facts and circumstances of each case.

9. There is no dispute with regard to the family members of the respondents as noted above. There also cannot be any dispute that the respondent No. 1 would require one room set for herself, one room set each for his unmarried grandsons, one room set for his married son Rajinder & his wife Rekha, and one for her widowed daughter-in-law. In addition, the requirements of the respondents for guest room, pooja room, drawing room cannot be said to be unreasonable or fanciful. The present accommodation with the respondents in the suit premises as shown in the site plan is also not disputed.

10. In view of all this, the requirements of the suit premises by the respondents is quite justifiable and reasonable. I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the ARC, warranting any interference by this court in revision. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

SEPTEMBER 21, 2012/akb