Delhi High Court
Pawan Kumar & Anr. vs Sat Narain Kaushik (Deceased) ... on 27 August, 2014
Author: Najmi Waziri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 06.02.2014
Date of Decision: 27.08.2014
+ RC. REV. No.526 of 2011 & CM No.22675 of 2011
PAWAN KUMAR & ANR. ...... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K. Mittal, Adv.
versus
SAT NARAIN KAUSHIK (Deceased) through LRs & ORS...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vivek Srivastava, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
1. This petition impugns an order dated 10.6.2011, whereby the eviction-
petition of the respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the " Act") was
allowed and an eviction order was passed on the ground of bona fide
requirement with respect to the tenanted premises, i.e. one room
admeasuring 10ft. X 8ft. on the ground floor of premises bearing
No.2236, Gali Anar, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 (for
short „tenanted premises‟). The respondents/landlords had sought
eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises were required for
their bona fide use since they neither had sufficient nor suitable
accommodation to satisfy the residential needs of their dependent family
members. They had contended that for a family of nineteen (19)
members living in the suit property, in addition to five married sisters
and one married daughter each of petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 3 along with
_______________________________________________________________________
their respective children and husbands, who would often visit the
petitioners in the suit property, the space available was woefully
insufficient to meet their requirements. They had submitted that apart
from the aforesaid property they had no other residential accommodation
in Delhi. The Trial Court took into account the details of accommodation
on the ground, first and second floors of the suit property. On the
ground floor a room admeasuring 20.3ft. X 8ft and two stores
admeasuring 10ft. X 4ft and 10ft. X 5 ft. inside the said room was shown
in the site plan filed by the landlords. On the first floor one room
admeasuring 13.6ft. x 9ft. and another room admeasuring 20.3ft. X 8ft.
with two stores admeasuring 10ft. x 4ft. and 10ft. x 5ft. and a kitchen
and a bathroom were shown in possession of the eviction-petitioners.
On the second floor one room admeasuring 13.6ft. x 9ft. and a tin shed
admeasuring 7.6ft. x 12ft. along with a toilet was shown in the site plan.
The site plan showed a shop on the ground floor in the possession of a
tenant Manohar Lal, which was required for the residential purposes of
the family of the petitioners.
2. The case was put to trial and after appreciation of evidence led by the
parties, the eviction order was passed. The Trial Court found that the
landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties; that a case for
bona fide requirement was made out, because although the tenant had
refuted the landlords‟ arguments that their family comprised 19
members living in the suit property in addition to five married daughters
of petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 3 and visits by married sisters of the petitioners,
but the tenant‟s having admitted that at least eight adult members were
residing in the property, the Trial Court found that even for eight adult
_______________________________________________________________________
members, the accommodation available to the petitioners in the suit
property was insufficient to meet their requirements. The Trial Court
was further of the view that even for family of petitioner No.1 and his
wife, his two sons with their wives and four grand children and
petitioner No.2 his daughter and two children the accommodation
available with the eviction-petitioners was insufficient. In the aforesaid
circumstances, the Trial Court found that the case for bona fide
requirement was made out and an eviction order with respect to the
tenanted premises was passed.
3. The tenant had argued that the three rooms on the ground floor were big
enough to be converted for the purposes of residence; that two separate
rooms on the ground floor admeasuring 10ft. x 8ft. each were conjoined
into one big room of 20ft. x 8ft., therefore, thereby creating an artificial
paucity of accommodation. However, the Trial Court took into account
the cross-examination of RW-1 in which the latter had admitted that this
conversion was done about 15-20 years ago, hence it would have no
bearing upon the eviction proceedings. Furthermore, the room
admeasuring 10ft. x 8ft. having an area of less than 100 sq.ft. could not
have been used as a living room, accordingly it was held that the
petitioners had rightly converted the two rooms into one decent size
room having habitable area. The site plan filed by the petitioners was
admitted by the tenant to be correct. The tenant did not file any counter
site plan. Accordingly the accommodation contended by the landlords,
to be available to them was found to be correct.
4. It was also admitted by the tenant that the shop on the ground floor was
always used as a shop and was never used for residential purposes and
_______________________________________________________________________
that there was no other tenant in the suit premises except him. The Trial
Court was of the view that since the respondents had used the premises
for residence they could not possibly argue that the suit premises could
not be used for the same purpose.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued: that the room of 7ft. x
10ft. is not good enough in view of the latter‟s improved social and
economic circumstances; that the landlords‟ family size has reduced and
some family members have shifted to other places such as Rohtak; that
many rooms were joined into one room to create scarcity; that the site
plan was incorrect; and finally that there was no bona fide requirement
and the eviction petition was only to harass the tenant.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the room on the
ground floor could be used for the purpose it was sought, since there was
severe shortage for residential space for the eviction-petitioners. He
submitted that insofar as the landlords‟ site plan had been admitted and
not been controverted by any other site plan of the tenant, the paucity of
space set out stood duly established hence the bona fide requirement was
clearly made out. He also submits that the sizes of the rooms given in
the site plan were too small and were required to be enlarged to an
appropriate size, for them to be rendered habitable. He submitted that the
accommodation available to the landlords on the ground, first and
second floors were merely six rooms which were extremely insufficient
by any standards for the eight adult members of the petitioners‟ families,
as already admitted by the tenants themselves. He submits that there is
no reason why the landlords should suffer such hardship when the
tenanted premises could be made available to them for their bona fide
_______________________________________________________________________
need and use. He further submits that the petitioners were already in
possession of an alternate accommodation which was disclosed during
trial proceedings but the tenants have deliberately not shifted to those
premises. It is also denied that the family member, Hemant, had
permanently shifted out of the suit premises.
7. This Court notes that each of the arguments made by the learned counsel
for the petitioners has been duly dealt with in the impugned order. As
regards the improved economic and social circumstances of the
petitioners, this argument too goes against the tenant because with
improvement in economic and social circumstances, the petitioners
would require a little more space for themselves, their daughters and
their growing grandchildren. In addition the visits by the married
daughters as well as their families and by the married sisters and their
respective families, would obviously require additional space for them
also.
8. This Court is of the view that when it is clearly admitted by the tenants
that there were eight adult members de hors the children, in the families
of the landlords whereas the rooms available to them were only six,
therefore, the Trial Court rightly concluded there was clearly a shortage
of space hence bona fide requirement was made out. The site plan filed
by the landlord was admitted hence the paucity of space was also
established. No other suitable alternate accommodation was established
in favour of the landlords. The eviction order was passed after the
parties led their evidence in full trial. No case was made out which
could deny the landlords, the relief they had sought on the ground of
bona fide need. Therefore, the logical conclusion was that the eviction
_______________________________________________________________________
order be passed. The impugned order was passed on the basis of the
records. It suffers from no material irregularity.
9. The petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
AUGUST 27, 2014 NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
b'nesh
_______________________________________________________________________
