Skip to content


R. Budhawar Vs. Maharaj Kumar M. Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision Appeal No. 39 of 1980
Judge
Reported in1980RLR463
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)
AppellantR. Budhawar
RespondentMaharaj Kumar M. Singh
Advocates: Mukul Rohatagi and; M.S. Vohra, Advs
Excerpt:
- .....to begin with his family comprised himself, wife, a child and 3 servants besides his mother and grand-mother and his parents-in-law also visit him off and on. later on one more child was born to him. he, thereforee, found the accommodation in his possession to be insufficient which comprised only two bed rooms and one drawing cum-dining room one servant quarter besides kitchen etc. the petitioner did not examine herself nor produced any evidence in spite of several opportunities the learned rent coatrollar found that the need of the respondent was genuine and he decreed eviction. hence, this revision. (2) the findings of the learned controller were that he belonged to a family of princes and was currently working as a shipping manager in shaw wallace & co. there has been an addition.....
Judgment:

M.L. Jain, J.

(1) The respondent is the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant. The house is three storeyed- The ground floor is occupied by the landlord himself while the first floor and Barsati in the second floor are let out to the petitioner. The premises were initially let out to M/s Bagai Motors which was dissolved in the year 1972. In 1973 the petitioner became the direct renant. The landlord sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal bona fide requirement under section 15(1)(e) the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. He stated that he belongs to the the princely family of Registhan and to begin with his family comprised himself, wife, a child and 3 servants Besides his mother and grand-mother and his parents-in-law also visit him off and on. Later on one more child was born to him. He, thereforee, found the accommodation in his possession to be insufficient which comprised only two bed rooms and one drawing cum-dining room one servant quarter besides kitchen etc. The petitioner did not examine herself nor produced any evidence in spite of several opportunities The learned Rent Coatrollar found that the need of the respondent was genuine and he decreed eviction. Hence, this revision.

(2) The findings of the learned Controller were that he belonged to a family of princes and was currently working as a Shipping Manager in Shaw Wallace & Co. There has been an addition of two children after the house was let out. His mother comes and lives with him for about 6 months in a year. Grand-mother also used to come off and on. His servants had increased from 3 to 4. His parents-in-law also pay occasional visits. Even the respondent admitted that once the grand-mother had to be put up in the Barsati. The Controller held that the requirement of the petitioner thereforee was neither whimsical nor capricious. He observed that if the requirement of the parents-in-law was not considered, even then the requirement of accommodation for his grand-mother had to be taken into considerarion.

(3) It was urged or behalf of the petitioner that she was a widow suffering from cancer and thereforee was unable to appear in the court but even taking for granted what the landlord had to say, no case for bona fide requirement was made out. As a matter of fact the learned lower court has taken into consideration the requirement of servants and occasional visitor which is not permissible in law.

(4) I have considered over the objections and it appears to me that the present accommodation is certainly not sufficient for the requirements of the landlord. He has only two bed rooms in the ground floor, one naturally will be occupied by him and the other one will be used for his two children. Even if the requirement of domestic servants is kept out of consideration, the landlord certainly requires additional accommodation for his mother and grand-mother, whenever they happen to visit him. He has stated that the mother lives for about 6 months with him and the grand-mother also frequently comes to see him The mother and the grand-mother cannot be considered casual visitors. The requirement is patently bona fide. Nothing has been proved to the contrary.


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