Skip to content


Roshan Lal Aggarwal Vs. Madhu Soodan Sharma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 69 of 1971
Judge
Reported inAIR1973Delhi7; 8(1972)DLT222
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)
AppellantRoshan Lal Aggarwal
RespondentMadhu Soodan Sharma and ors.
Advocates: Sultan Singh and; H.L. Sabarwal, Advs.
Excerpt:
.....the findings of the tribunal. the tribunal has also found that the mother of the family needs a room and the family needs a drawing room as well as a dining room......that besides the bed rooms for the mother and other members of the family, a drawing room and a dining room were also needed and so it reversed the decision of the additional controller and ordered eviction. (6) in this second appeal, the landlords also filed cross objections requesting that the finding of the tribunal in refusing to take the need of the third landlord into consideration was not correct, and should be reversed. the respondents also filed an application under section 151 of the code of civil procedure along with an affidavit of shri girijesh kumar sharma, in which it was inter alias stated that he had resigned his job with glaxo industries and he had been relieved of his duties on 29th september, 1971 and he had left united kingdom for good and had come to stay in the.....
Judgment:

B.C. Misra, J.

(1) This appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1938 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the tenant against the appellate judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 5th January, 1971 by which the Tribunal allowed the appeal and reversing the order of the Additional Controller dated 28th February, 1970, finally ordered eviction of the tenant appellant on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the landlords mentioned in proviso (e) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act.

(2) The brief facts of the case giving rise to the appe I are that the three landlords who are owners of the property in dispute, instituted a petition against the tenant for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity on the allegations that two of the landlords had a family of 8 and 6 members respectively while third landlord Girijesh Kumar Sharma, who was temporarily residing in London along with his wife, was due to return to Delhi in a few months time and the mother of the landlords was residing with them and they had only four rooms in their possession. They also stated that their sister along-with her husband was residing in a small miani and the accommodation with them was insufficient. It had also been urged that one of ' the rooms was being used as a temple.

(3) The petition was contested mainly on the ground that a three roomed tenement on the first flour of the property had been made available to the landlords and so their need stood satisfied and they did not have any bona fide necessity to require eviction. A replication was filed to the written statement and the parties proceeded to trial.

(4) The Additional Controller came to the conclusion that the accommodation available with the landlords including one that had fallen vacant during the pendency of the proceedings was sufficient for their need and he dismissed the petition.

(5) On the appeal, the Tribunal came to the contrary conclusion. Though it held that Girijesh Kumar Sharma, the third landlord, had not yet been posted in Delhi and so there was no likelihood of his being posted here and his requirement could not be taken into consideration, the Tribunal has accepted the contention of the landlords that one of the rooms was needed for a temple and that besides the bed rooms for the mother and other members of the family, a drawing room and a dining room were also needed and so it reversed the decision of the Additional Controller and ordered eviction.

(6) In this second appeal, the landlords also filed cross objections requesting that the finding of the Tribunal in refusing to take the need of the third landlord into consideration was not correct, and should be reversed. The respondents also filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with an affidavit of Shri Girijesh Kumar Sharma, in which it was inter alias stated that he had resigned his job with Glaxo industries and he had been relieved of his duties on 29th September, 1971 and he had left United Kingdom for good and had come to stay in the house in dispute where his wife had been living and she had got a child born in February, 1971.

(7) The learned counsel for the tenant appellant has strongly assailed the findings of the Tribunal. He has urged that no accommodation ought to have been provided for the temple and the mother.separately and that the family did not deserve to have a separate drawing room and a dining room and that the accommodation of 7 rooms was more than sufficient for the family of the status of the landlord respondents.

(8) I have carefully considered the submissions. Having a family deity and a temple in the house is a mode of living with high class Hindu families and it all depends as to how to much respect a family wants to show to the family deity. Some persons would allot a full separate room others would only allot a partitioned space in a room and utilise the remaining space for residence; another kind of persons would put the deity in a small store or a small corner of the kitchen, but it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal where it takes into consideration the requirement of the deity along with the remaining family. This is not to say that a landlord is entitled to obtain eviction merely for the sake of the family idol, but where h.is need for residence is otherwise genuine, the space for the idol can be taken into consideration along with the other requirements of the landlords in the circumstances of each particular case. The Tribunal has also found that the mother of the family needs a room and the family needs a drawing room as well as a dining room. It again depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the standard of living of the parties and the respect they went to show to the mother as to whether the mother would be allotted a separate room or she can be requested to live with the children. The landlord is entitled to make himself more comfortable in his property and he cannut be required to cramp himself in the premises for the benefit of tenants, if his need is genuine and bona fide, that is to say, if he does not have any oblique motive for attempting to evict the tenant.

(9) The Tribunal has fixed need for a drawing room and a dining room to the family. Perhaps the status of the family does not require two separate rooms for this purpose and I may have accepted need for one dining cum-drawing room only instead of two separate rooms if I were deciding the first appeal, but the second appeal in this court is confined to a substantial question of law and I do not find that the order of the Tribunal is perverse or unreasonable to warrant interference by this Court. It has arrived at a conclusion, that the need of the landlords is bana fide after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record and the circumstances of the case and no infirmity can be found with the order.

(10) The Tribunal rejected the requirements of the third landlord. The cross-objections in this Court and the application and the affidavit filed in this Court show that the third landlord has resigned his job with the Glaxo Laboratories and has come to stay in Delhi permanently and he has no intention to go back to the United Kingdom. Taking this subsequent event into consideration would have necessitated a remand to the Additional Controller to take into account the requirements of the third landlord. This would have resulted an increase of pressure on the accomodation and the result of the case would have been the same as has been arrived at by the Tribunal and instead of allowing two rooms for drawing and dining, the Additional Controller might have allotted two rooms for the third landlord and one room as a drawing cum-dining room. Under the circumstances, the remind of the case would be futile.

(11) Consequently, I endrose the finding of the Tribunal that the landlords bona fide need the premises in dispute for residence of themselves ]and the members of their family and the other of the Tribunal is correct.

(12) The tenant present in Court has undertaken to vacate the premises on or before 31st July, 1972 and he has prayed that the order for eviction be not executed till then. The undertaking has bean accepted.

(13) As a result, I dismiss the appeal subject to the modification that the order for eviction will not be executable till 31st July, 1972 in view of the undertaking of the tenant-appellant. In the circamstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

--- *** ---


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