Skip to content


Vinod Kumar Bhalla Vs. Nanak Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 176 of 1982
Judge
Reported inILR1982Delhi984
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 25B(8)
AppellantVinod Kumar Bhalla
RespondentNanak Singh
Advocates: P.P. Malhotra,; A.K. Malhotra and; V.D. Pahuja, Advs
Excerpt:
.....in occupation of one of the sons of the respondent. the allegation is vague.; 3. the first floor premises is in the occupation of the heirs of a deceased tenant, who have been in occupation of the same during the last 10 years. the suit premises were, not let out, during the last 10 years. the premises presently in the occupation of the respondent are insufficient and even if the respondent intends to sell or re-let the premises, the petitioner has a right to proceed under section 19 of the act. apart from the allegations made in this regard being vague, the petitioner has sufficient protection of law.; 4. the fact that the petitioner required 5 rooms does not mean that no order for eviction can be passed with respect to 2 rooms which are the subject matter of the dispute. if the..........w. c. on barsati floor at k-l/39, model town, delhi on a monthly rent of rs. 325.00 , that he was, owner of the premises which were let for residential purposes that he required the premises bona fide for the residence of himself and his family members consisting of himself, his wife, one married son, daughter-in-law, one unmarried son aged 21 years, three daughters aged 19, 17 and 14 years respectively, besides a servant, that the unmarried son was of marriageable age. he further alleged that he had been in possession of the entire ground floor consisting of two bed rooms, one drawing-cum-dining room, store, kitchen and a temporary shed in the rear besides two bath rooms, that he had no other residential accommodation, that his annual income was rs. 44,000.00 that that he required five.....
Judgment:

Sultan Singh, J.

(1) The petitioner-tenant challenges the judgment and order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 19th December, 1981 dismissing his application for leave to defend and passing an order of eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against him.

(2) The respondent-landlord on 8th May, 1981 filed the eviction petition out of which this revision has arisen alleging that the petitioner was his tenant in two rooms, kitchen, bath and W. C. on Barsati floor at K-l/39, Model Town, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 325.00 , that he was, owner of the premises which were let for residential purposes that he required the premises bona fide for the residence of himself and his family members consisting of himself, his wife, one married son, daughter-in-law, one unmarried son aged 21 years, three daughters aged 19, 17 and 14 years respectively, besides a servant, that the unmarried son was of marriageable age. He further alleged that he had been in possession of the entire ground floor consisting of two bed rooms, one drawing-cum-dining room, store, kitchen and a temporary shed in the rear besides two bath rooms, that he had no other residential accommodation, that his annual income was Rs. 44,000.00 that that he required five more rooms for his family, that he was intending to file another eviction petition against the heirs of the tenant in occupation of the first floor consisting of three rooms.

(3) The petitioner-tenant in his application for leave to defend alleged that the respondent was not the owner, and one Thakur Dass was owner of the suit property, that his married son was in occupation of a separate house on Plot No. K-218, Model Town, Delhi as owner and was not dependent upon him, that the respondent had in his possession the entire ground floor, that he has no servant, that he had let out the first floor on exorbitant rate of rent, that he wanted to sell the property after getting it vacated and offered him Rs. 15,000 as premium to vacate the premises. The Additional Controller dismissed the application for leave to defend and passed the eviction order. Hence this revision under Section 25B(8) of the Act.

(4) The petitioner-tenant has disputed the landlord's averments in the eviction petition but in law this is not sufficient to enable a tenant to obtain leave to defend. His defense must be clear, specific and positive. Vague or bald allegations are not to be regarded as disclosing facts to disentitle landlord for obtaining an order for recovery of possession, as has been held by the Full Bench in Mohan Lal vs . Tirath Ram Chopra and another, : AIR1982Delhi405 .

(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is not the owner of the premises. His allegations is that one Mr. Thakur Dass is the owner of the property. Thakur Dass is no body but father of the respondent who had died 50 years ago. The respondent has filed on record the sale deed dated 6th February, 1968 in his own favor. It discloses that Thakur Dass was his father. The petitioner was not able to make definite allegation that anybody else was the owner-landlord.

(6) The next contention is that the married son of the respondent is in occupation of another premises in the property on Plot No. K-2/8, Model Town Delhi as owner. Particulars of any document in favor of the son of the respondent have not been given. On the other hand the respondent in his affidavit has deposed that his married son was neither owner nor in occupation of K-2/8, Model Town, Delhi or any other property. The allegation of the petitioner that the married son was the owner of the property is vague and nothing has been placed on record to show prima facie that respondent or his married son has any right to occupy any portion of the said property at K-2/8, Model Town. Delhi. Learned counsel for the respondent has produced for inspection the ration cards of himself and his family including that of his married son, which disclose that the respondent and his married son have been residents of suit property i.e. K-l[39, Model Town, Delhi.

(7) Regarding the tenant on first floor it has been deposed by the respondent that Sh. Lal Chand Bhatia was his tenanton the first floor for more than 10 years, that he has since died and his heirs have been in possession by operation of law. Thus it is clear that no part of the suit house was let out during the last 10 years. The respondent has further disclosed that he requires five rooms in addition to the accommodation on ground floor. The first floor consists of two bed rooms and one drawing-cum-dining room and the second floor consists of only two bed rooms. The family of the petitioner consists of 8 members besides one servant. The unmarried son is of a marriageable age. The respondent would require one bed room for himself and his wife, one bed room for his married son, one bed room for his unmarried son and three bed rooms for his three daughters. Thus the requirement of the respondent is of six bed rooms besides drawing-cum-dining room. The respondent has deposed that he has no other property except the suit property for the residence of himself and his family members.

(8) The allegations regarding the intention of the respondent to sell or re-let the property are also vague. Experience has shown that in all applications for leave to defend the common defense raised by almost all the tenants, is that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent or to sell the property after getting it vacated. Such type of allegations are generally without any foundation. When an order of eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act is passed, the tenant is granted six month's time to vacate the premises under Section 14(7) of the Act. After getting the premises vacated the landlord is required to occupy the same within two months under Section 19 of the Act and he is not entitled to re-let or alienate the whole or any part of the tenancy premises within three years from the date of obtaining possession from the tenant. In other words, it would mean that the landlord is required to keep the premises for a period of three years with him. He would thus be not in a position either to sel'l the house or to re-let the same. The allegations of the alleged intention to sell or re-let do not require consideration at this stage. If the landlord sells the property or re-lets the same after obtaining possession, the tenant may proceed against the landlord for restoration of possession under Section 19 of the Act. This section is sufficient protection to the tenant against the alleged sale or re-letting of the premises by the landlord.

(9) Learned counsel for the petitioner then, submits that on the ground floor there is a space measuring 9-1/2 x 8'-0' On one side of this space is entrance for the kitchen and on the other is the entrance for store. This place has been shown as lobby in the plan and it cannot be used as a bed room as there is the main passage on another side and entrance into the drawing-cum-dining room. If the lobby or the space pointed out by the petitioner has got four entrances, I do not appreciate how it can be used as a bed room. Learned counsel then submits that there is also a temporary shed in the rear courtyard. It is admitted that the roof of the shed is of tin sheets. It is of a temporary nature. It appears that it is an unauthorised construction. In any case tin shed is not fit for use as a bed room.

(10) Lastly learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent as alleged by him required five additional rooms but he had not filed any evietion case against the tenant occupying the first floor. This is no ground for refusing the relief of eviction to the respondent. The respondent has alleged in his eviction petition that he wanted to file the eviction case against the tenant occupying the first floor. The respondent requires five rooms while the petitioner is only in possession of two rooms. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that when the alleged requirement is of five rooms, order for eviction with respect to two rooms should not be passed. I do not agree. If the additional requirement is of five rooms order for eviction of two rooms is certainly to be passed. The petitioner is a tenant with respect to two rooms only and thereforee the respondent cannot claim more than two rooms from him. If he gets two rooms from the petitioner his requirement would be satisfied to some extent. Instead of two rooms, the respondent and his family after the eviction of the petitioner would be in possession of four bed rooms besides drawing room. Learned counsel for the respondent however has stated at the bar that a petition for eviction of the tenant on first floor has already been filed and is still pending. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the Additional Controller. The requirement of the respondent is bona fide. The existing accommodation with him is insufficient for the residence of himself and his family members.

(11) The revision petition has no merit and it is dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner is however granted one month to vacate the premises.


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