Delhi High Court
Harvinder Singh vs Afsar Khan on 10 March, 2017
$~A-49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 10.03.2017
+ RC.REV. 69/2017
HARVINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Madan Lal Sharma, Advocate
versus
AFSAR KHAN ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Zakir Raza, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
1. By the present revision petition filed under section 25-B(8) of the
Delhi Rent Control, Act, 1958 the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated
5.10.2016 by which order the trial court while considering the application of
the respondent seeking leave to defend dismissed the Eviction Petition.
2. The petitioner has filed the eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of
the DRC Act stating that the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted
premises. It is stated that the elder son of the petitioner Shri Harmeet Singh
who is pursuing Mechanical Engineering and was in the third year as on
18.1.2014, has made up his mind to start his own profession from the
tenanted premises. Hence, the Eviction Petition has been filed.
3. The ARC by the impugned order took up the application for leave to
defend filed by the respondent. However, instead of adjudicating upon the
said application it dismissed the Eviction Petition holding that it is a matter
RC.REV.69/2017 Page 1
of common knowledge that the person who holds a degree in Mechanical
Engineering is a human resource and not a professional. It also noted that in
case such a person wants to work as a professional his nature of work has to
be put forth ab initio. Hence, it concluded that the need raised is bogus. It
also held that the person who holds a degree in engineering cannot be
dependent on his father and that as understood in legal terms a major son
who qualifies to be an engineer cannot be held to be dependent on his
parents. Accordingly, the Eviction Petition was dismissed.
4. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:-
"14. Protection of tenant against eviction. -
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
any other law or contract, no order or decree for the
recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by and
court or Controller in favor of the landlord against a tenant:
(e) That the premises let for residential purpose are required
bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for
himself or for any member of his family dependent on him,
if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose
benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person
has no other reasonably suitable residential
accommodation;"
5. Hence a landlord may for his own use or requirement of any member
of his family dependent upon him institute an eviction petition for bona fide
requirement. The word dependent has been interpreted in a catena of
judgments.
6. As far as the dependency of the son on his father is concerned,
reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Joginder Pal vs. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397. The Supreme
RC.REV.69/2017 Page 2
Court in para 33 held as follows:-
"33. Our conclusions are crystallised as under:
(i) the words 'for his own use' as occurring in Section
13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,
1949 must receive a wide, liberal and useful meaning rather
than a strict or narrow construction.
(ii) The expression -- landlord requires for 'him own use', is not
confined in its meaning to actual physical user by the landlord
personally. The requirement not only of the landlord himself
but also of the normal 'emanations' of the landlord is included
therein. All the cases and circumstances in which actual
physical occupation or user by someone else, would amount to
occupation or user by the landlord himself, cannot be
exhaustively enumerated. It will depend on a variety of factors
such as inter-relationship and inter-dependence--economic or
otherwise, between the landlord and such person in the
background of social, socio-religious and local customs and
obligations of the society or region to which they belong.
(iii) The tests to be applied are : (i) whether the requirement
pleaded and proved may properly be regarded as the landlord's
own requirement? and, (ii) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of a given case actual occupation and user by a
person other than the landlord would be deemed by the landlord
as 'his own' occupation or user? The answer would, in its turn,
depend on (i) the nature and degree of relationship and/or
dependence between the landlord pleading the requirement as
'his own' and the person who would actually use the premises;
(ii) the circumstances in which the claim arises and is put
forward, and (iii) the intrinsic tenability of the claim. The Court
on being satisfied of the reasonability and genuineness of claim,
as distinguished from a mere ruse to get rid of the tenant, will
uphold the landlord's claim.
(iv) While casting its judicial verdict, the Court shall adopt a
practical and meaningful approach guided by the realities of
life.
RC.REV.69/2017 Page 3
(v) In the present case, the requirement of landlord of the suit
premises for user as office of his chartered accountant son is the
requirement of landlord 'for his own use' within the meaning of
Section 13(3)(a)(ii)."
That was also a case where an eviction petition has been filed by the
landlord for the use of his chartered accountant son.
7. Similarly, this court in the case of Puran Chand Aggarwal vs. Lekh
Raj, 210(2014) DLT 131 held as follows:-
"36. It is also settled principle of law that the landlord is
entitled to seek eviction of tenanted premises not only for
himself/herself, but for other dependant family members. There
is no dispute that the parents are under moral obligation to help
establish their sons in business and can seek eviction of the
tenanted premises for them. Reference in this regard can be
made to the case of Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, IV
(2002) SLT 27= (2002) 5 SCC 397, where the Supreme Court
held that:
The requirement is not the requirement of the
landlord alone in the sense that the landlord must
for himself require the accommodation and to
fulfill the requirement he must himself physically
occupy the premises. The requirement of a
member of the family or of a person on whom the
landlord is dependent or who is dependent on the
landlord can be considered to be the requirement
of the landlord for his own use......... Keeping in
view the social or socio-religious milieu and
practices prevalent in a particular section of
society or a particular region, to which the
landlord belongs, it may be the obligation of the
landlord to settle a person closely connected with
him to make him economically independent so as
to support himself and/or the landlord. To
discharge such obligation the landlord may require
RC.REV.69/2017 Page 4
the tenancy premises and such requirement would
be the requirement of the landlord.
Some of the other judgments which deal with the similar issue
are:-
i) Kharati Ram Khanna & Sons. vs. Krishna Luthra, 2010 (172)
DLT 551, wherein it was observed that the requirement of the
landlord to settle down her two sons separately and
independently was found to be genuine and bonafide.
ii) In Labhu Lal vs. Sandhya Gupta, 2010 (173) DLT 318, it
was observed that the landlord's son and daughter in law are
dependent for accommodation on respondent the requirement
of the landlord's son and daughter in law for expanding clinic
being run in premises in question is genuine.
iii) In Sh. Ravinder Singh v. Sh. Deepesh Khorana (RC. Rev.
No. 3/2011, Date of decision: 10th December, 2012), it was
observed that the son of the respondent is unemployed and is
dependent on respondent for his livelihood. It is nothing but
bona fide for the respondent to require the suit shop to set up a
computer business for his son and to help him find a source of
income and subsequently settle down in life.
iv) In Brij Mohan vs. Shri Pal Jain, 49 (1993) DLT 543, it was
observed that it is settled law that grown up children require
separate rooms to live in a manner he or she likes.
v) In Ram Babu Aggarwal v. Jay Kishan Das, 2009 (2) RCR
455, the court recognized the right of the landlord for
possession of his property for setting up a business for his son."
8. This Court in Anil Kumar Gupta vs. Deepika Verma, 224 (2015)
DLT 473 elaborated the concept of dependent as stated in Section 14(1)(e)
of the DRC Act and noted as follows:-
"12. Customarily or in common parlance a dependent would
be defined as any person who is reliant on another either for
financial or physical support for sustenance of life. It is
RC.REV.69/2017 Page 5
pertinent to note that the word dependent or as to what
constitutes a family has nowhere been defined in the Delhi
Rent Control Act. Rather, the legislators consciously and
deliberately have used the words "any member of family
dependent on the landlord" instead of defining a clear degree
of relations so as to construe a wider meaning to the aforesaid
words as man is a social creature and part of a complex
societal system involving myriad of relations from which he
cannot be isolated. It is significant to understand that the
dependency is not restricted to financial or physical but will
also include emotional reliance on another person. Reliance
in this regard is placed on the findings of this court in M/S.
Jhalani Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. B.K. Soni; AIR 1994
Delhi 167, wherein the court observed that the social set up
of our society is such where a married daughter continues to
enjoy a place of pride in her maternal home and therefore
while considering the requirement of the landlord her married
daughter and her expected visits cannot be lost sight of.
Similarly in Sain Dass v. Madan Lal; 1972 Ren CJ (SN) 8
(Delhi), this Court has acknowledged that the word "himself"
has to be construed to mean "himself" as cohabiting with his
family members with whom he is normally accustomed to
live. Therefore, contrary to the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner financial or physical incapacitation
cannot be the sole premises for determining dependency on
another.
13. The Honorable Supreme Court in Corporation of the City
of Nagpur v. The Nagpur Handloom Cloth Market Co. Ltd.,
AIR (1963) SC 1192 while interpreting the word "Family"
observed as under :
"But the expression 'family' has according to the contest in
which it occurs, a variable connotation. It does not in the
setting of the rules postulate the existence of relationship
either of blood or by marriage between the persons residing
in the tenement Even a single person may be regarded as a
family, and a master and servant would also be so regarded."
RC.REV.69/2017 Page 6
14. As it crystallizes from the aforesaid the word dependent
cannot be constructed in a narrow and literal manner. The
same have to be interpreted judiciously keeping in mind the
intent of the legislators. As discussed above the words used
under S.14 (1) (e), are "any member of family dependent on
him" which would include the daughter in law who in the
instant matter is dependent on her mother in law/landlady
(respondent herein) and on account of sharing of residence
both the daughter in law and the respondent are physically,
emotionally and financially inter-dependent."
9. Hence, the phrase "any member of the family dependent upon him"
could include the „son‟. It is clear that a father is under a moral obligation to
establish his son in a business and can seek eviction of the tenanted premises
for him. The finding recorded by the ARC, namely, that a person holding a
degree in engineering cannot be said to be dependent upon his father is an
observation which is contrary to the settled legal position. The impugned
order suffers from material illegality. The order is accordingly quashed. The
matter is remanded back to the ARC. Parties to appear before the ARC on
11.4.2017. The ARC is requested to de novo hear the arguments in the
matter and pass orders. The ARC is also requested to expeditiously deal with
the application filed by the respondent seeking leave to defend and dispose
of the same as per law. Present petition stands disposed of. All pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
JAYANT NATH, J
MARCH 10, 2017
n
RC.REV.69/2017 Page 7
