Skip to content


M.M. Mehta Vs. Chaman Lal Kapoor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Appeal No. 220 of 1979
Judge
Reported inILR1980Delhi94
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)
AppellantM.M. Mehta
RespondentChaman Lal Kapoor
Advocates: A.K. Ganguly and; Y.K. Jain, Advs
Excerpt:
delhi rent control act (1958) - section 14 (1)(e)--residence required bona fide by the landlord--landlord did not give details of accommodation available with him--if fatal to his eviction petition--married sons having separate income but living together with landlord father--whether 'dependent' under proviso (e) of section 14(1).; in a petition under section 14(1)(e) of the delhi rent control act, 1958, two questions arose for decision :--; (i) failure on the part of the landlord to give the details of accommodation available with him a required under the delhi rent control rules 1959, if fatal to the landlord's eviction petition, and ; (ii) whether the landlord's married sons earning their separate livelihood, but staying with their father, are 'dependent' under proviso (e) of section..........in question are with by a single tenant or by more than the respondent whereas the other one tenant tenant 's on the backside of the floor. reply in the written statement 8&9 paras nos. 8 & 9 are correct. other tenant, who was on the backside of the floor, has since vacated the premises and this portion which was in the possession of one r.k. gupta as atenant is not in the possession of the petitioner. this accommodation is complete set in itself. the roof is in possession of the respondent.' (6) the argument of mr. gangoli is that in paragraph 8 the landlord was to give details of the accommodation available with him and not the details of the accommodation with the tenant. it is further submitted that the plan of the accommodation was not annexed along with the petition but was.....
Judgment:

Charanjit Talwar, J.

(1) The petitioner who is a tenant of the respondent seeks setting aside of the order of eviction passed against him on November 15, 1978 by the Rent Controller. Delhi, under Section 14(1)(e) of the delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, through this petition.

(2) The facts leading to the eviction petition are that the landlord, Chaman Lal Kapoor, owner of House No. Fl/5, Model Town, Delhi. had let out a portion on the first-floor of the said building comprising 2 bedrooms, one drawing-cum-dining-room, a bath and a kitchen, to the petitioner in August, 1964. Another portion on the first-floor, consisting of one bed-room, one store-room and a bath with a terrace, had been let out to another tenant. The said portion, however, was vacated by the other tenant in June, 1977. The family of the landlord consists of himself, his wife, 3 married sons, one unmarried son who, it is stated at the Bar, has also got married during the pendency of the proceedings, and 6 grand-children. The portion on the ground floor, according to the landlord, consists of one drawing-cum-dining room, 4 bedrooms, a kitchen and a bath etc. The second portion on the first-floor is now in his possession. In between the stairs leading from the first-floor to the ground-floor there is admittedly a 'Miani', and on the second-floor of the said building there is a 'barsati', all in possession of the landlord. His case was that he required the portion let out to the petitioner-tenant bonafide for occupation as residence for himself and for the other members of the family dependent on him. Consequently, the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was filed against the tenant which was allowed by the Rent Controller, as stated above.

(3) Mr. A. K. Gangoli, learned counsel for the petitioner, has. submitted that the order of eviction made by the Controller was not according to law and hence liable to be set aside. He urged, inter alia, that the application for eviction filed by the landlord was not as per the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959, the proceedings were thus void ab initio. Secondly, he submitted that the landlord has not proved his requirement as envisaged under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act; alternatively it was argued that the married sons of the landlord, who are individually earning their separate level hood, are not dependent on him and as such their requirement could not be made the basis of the eviction order under the said Section.

(4) The first ground of attack, namely, that the petition for eviction not being in the prescribed form and, thereforee, the proceedings are bad, has not been specifically aside in the revision petition before me. I, however, permitted the learned counsel to urge this point as, according to him, it went to the root of the matter. He submits that paragraph 8 of the form prescribed by the Rules, mandatorily lays down that the details of accommodation available with the landlord together with other particulars be furnished in the petition for eviction of a tenant. It is urged that the landlord not having done so, his petition for eviction was not liable to be entertained. Mr. Gangoli went to the extent that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction even to issue summons to the respondent-tenant on a petition which does not conform strictly with the form prescribed under Rule 3 of the Rules.

(5) To appreciate this submission, it is relevant to quote below paragraphs 8 and 9 of the amended eviction petition as well as reply thereto in the written statement, filed before the Controller :

'AMENDED Petition

8. Details of accommodation available Three rooms, latrine, bath attached together with particulars as regards, with two rooms and kitchen as ground area garden and out houses, per plan attached and shown if any, (Plan to be attached.) in red. 9. Whether the premises are occupied The premises in question are with by a single tenant or by more than the respondent whereas the other one tenant tenant 's on the backside of the floor.

Reply in the Written statement 8&9 Paras Nos. 8 & 9 are correct. Other tenant, who was on the backside of the floor, has since vacated the premises and this portion which was in the possession of one R.K. Gupta as atenant is not in the possession of the petitioner. This accommodation is complete set in itself. The roof is in possession of the respondent.'

(6) The argument of Mr. Gangoli is that in paragraph 8 the landlord was to give details of the accommodation available with him and not the details of the accommodation with the tenant. It is further submitted that the plan of the accommodation was not annexed along with the petition but was brought on record and proved by the landlord during his examination-in-chief. The plan not having been attached as required under the Rules, it could not have been produced at a later stage, so urges the learned counsel. The effect, according to him, is that the Controller could not proceed to hear or pronounce judgment on such a defective petition.

(7) In my view the submission is entirely misconceived and is to be rejected. The tenant was aware of the case, which he had to meet his reply which is quoted above, clearly shows that he was admitting the averment relating to the accommodation in his possession. In reply to the grounds taken under paragraph 18 (a) of the petition he had specified the accommodation available with the landlord. The form prescribed in the Appendix to the Rules is not only meant for an application for eviction of a tenant but is also made applicable for fixation of standard rent as also increase of standard rent. It is to be suitably adopted. It is correct that in a petition for eviction of a tenant, the landlord is expected to give the details of accommodation available with him apart from the details of accommodation for which he is seeking eviction of the tenant. The plan is also required to be attached with the petition. Failure on the part of the applicant- landlord in not giving the complete details, however, does not vitiate the proceedings as has been urged before me. Admittedly, with the earlier petition a plan showing the accommodation in possession of the petitioner-tenant had been filed. With the amended petition for eviction it cannot be said that another plan ought to have been annexed. The complete plan of the accommodation available with the landlord together with the plan of premises in dispute was proved by the landlord who appeared as A.W.I. Significantly, no questions were asked from the witness regarding the authenticity of this plan. At this stage, in the revision petition, it is not open to the tenant to urge that, in fact there are more than four bedrooms on the ground-floor. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not consider that non-mention by the landlord in the petition of the accommodation available with him has resulted in any failure of justice. The fact stands proved on evidence.

(8) The other submission that the requirement of the married sons is not the requirement of the landlord and, thereforee, could not be made the basis for eviction, has also no merit. There is a catena of authorities of this Court that a member of the family, although not financially dependent on the landlord but living together with him, is covered by the word 'dependent' used in proviso (e) to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(9) In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs. I would, however, give six months time to the petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //