Skip to content


Sh. Devinder Singh Puri Vs. Sh. Mohan Lal Mehta - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R. No. 1259 of 1981
Judge
Reported in27(1985)DLT23a; 1985(9)DRJ48
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)
AppellantSh. Devinder Singh Puri
RespondentSh. Mohan Lal Mehta
Appellant Advocate G.S. Vohra and; M.S. Vohra, Advs
Respondent Advocate H.N. Chaudhry, Adv.
DispositionRevision petition dismissed
Cases ReferredSat Pal v. Nand Kishore
Excerpt:
.....need of his son studying chartered accountancy. the tenant contested on the ground that the glazed verandah could be used for the purpose and further a two room unit on ground floor became available during pendency of litigation which could be occupied.;that the verandah which was glazed to protect from rain and in which six rooms open cannot be used as a living room and when the requirement of the landlord is of one room he cannot be compelled to have two rooms. - - learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when a two room set was vacated the need of the respondent was satisfied and thereforee no order of eviction should be passed. the respondent feels satisfied and i think rightly that barsati room on the second floor if added to the existing accommodation on the first..........he is the owner of the same. the first floor of the said house is available to the respondent. the ground floor of the said building is with other tenants. the family of the respondent comprises of himself, his wife, and three children. the eldest son of the respondent is a graduate in commerce and undergoing a training for chartered accountancy course. the other two children are his daughters studying in 10th and 4th standard. the respondent has pleaded that he and his wife acquire a bed room for themselves that the son requires a separate room fur living and studies and it is proposed that the barsati room in. possession of the petitioner would be utilised by him for his living and studies and that the other bed room on the first floor would be utilised by the two daughters. it has.....
Judgment:

Sultan Singh, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th November, 1981 of the Additional Controller passing an order of eviction against the petitioner.

2. On 1st March, 1979 the respondent filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from Barsati room of Property at G-41, Green Park, New Delhi. The respondent has alleged that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in December, 1965 on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- exclusive of water and electricity charges. The size of the Barsati room is 15' X 10 1/2. He has alleged that the premises were let for residential purposes and were required bona fide for occupation as a residence for members of his family dependent upon him and that he is the owner of the same. The first floor of the said house is available to the respondent. The ground floor of the said building is with other tenants. The family of the respondent comprises of himself, his wife, and three children. The eldest son of the respondent is a Graduate in Commerce and undergoing a training for Chartered Accountancy Course. The other two children are his daughters studying in 10th and 4th standard. The respondent has pleaded that he and his wife acquire a bed room for themselves that the son requires a separate room fur living and studies and it is proposed that the Barsati room in. possession of the petitioner would be utilised by him for his living and studies and that the other bed room on the first floor would be utilised by the two daughters. It has also been alleged that the respondent's brother's wife is a widow having no child, that she comes for a long period for medical treatment. The respondent has no other accommodation.

3. The petitioner-tenant contested the eviction application. He has pleaded that the respondent has carved out a verandah measuring 10'X14' approximately which can be used as a bed room and as such the respondent does not require any additional accommodation. The family of the respondent is not denied. It has however been denied that the respondent's brother's widow has been residing with him. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings a two room set on the ground floor was vacated by another tenant of the respondent. The petitioner amended the written statement alleging that the requirement of the respondent would be fully met by a portion vacated on the ground floor. The additional Controller by the impugned judgment has held that the respondent was the owner of the premises and the premises were let for residential purpose and that the requirement was bona fide and the respondent has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the eviction order on the ground that the verandah on the first floor which was glazed by the respondent is sufficient for the requirement of the respondent and his family members. In other words, he submits that the first floor including the glazed verandah is sufficient for the respondent. Next he submits that during the pendency of the eviction case a two room set on the ground floor was vacated by the tenant in October, 1980 and the respondent did not occupy the same but had let out at enhanced rent. It is admitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent is the owner of the premises in question that the same were let for residential purposes and that the respondent has no other house at Delhi except the suit house.

5. The plan of the suit house is Ex. A-1. The first floor consists of two bed room measuring 12'--4 1/2'X10' drawing-cum-dining room besides kitchen store and bath. There is also a verandah shown in the plan which has been glazed. This verandah in fact is a circulation space and it cannot be used as a bed room. The size of the verandah appears to 10'X10'. Six doors of various rooms on the first floor open in this verandah, Door of the kitchen, door of the dining room, door of the drawing room, door of one bed room, door of the store and the door of lavatory open in this verandah. Under these circumstances although the verandah is glazed it cannot be used as a bed room. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the verandah was glazed just to protect against rain during rainy season. It appears reasonable that glazed verandah is to protect against rain during rainy season. I do not appreciate how this verandah where six rooms open can be used as a living space.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that on the ground floor there are two sets. Each set consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath and W.C. He submits that one such set was vacated by a tenant in October, 1980 and was let out at an enhanced rent. It is admitted by the respondent that a two room set on the ground floor was vacated and was re-let by him. He explains that his need has always been since the date of the filing of the eviction case only for one room for the living and study of his son who is doing the course of Chartered Accountancy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when a two room set was vacated the need of the respondent was satisfied and thereforee no order of eviction should be passed. The requirement of the landlord according to him is only for one room while according to the petitioner-tenant the requirement of the respondent is for more than one room on account of growing family. I do not agree. The respondent feels satisfied and I think rightly that Barsati room on the second floor if added to the existing accommodation on the first floor for the residence of the respondent and his family members it would be sufficient for his needs. If a landlord does not require two rooms because his need is only of one room and he lets out the two room set on the ground floor it cannot be said that the ground floor set was let with any mala fide intention or lack of bona fides. The family of the respondent as already stated, consists of one son and two daughters. The two daughters can be accommodated in one bed room and another bed room on the first floor is required by the respondent and his wife. The widow sister-in-law of the respondent who visits Delhi for purposes of treatment can be accommodated temporarily either in the bed room in use of the two daughters or even in the drawing room. For temporary purposes even the glazed verandah can be used as such. The real requirement is of the son who has no room for his living and for study. I am thereforee of the opinion that letting of the two room set which was vacated during the pendency of the eviction case in October, 1980 does not show any mala fide or want of bona fides on the part of the respondent. Further I am of the opinion that when the requirement of the respondent is of one room he cannot be compelled to have two rooms. Why should be lose the rental income. The respondent is an officer drawing about Rs. 1875/- per month as salary and allowances. It is stated at the bar that the respondent has been now promoted as Under Secretary drawing about Rs. 2500/- per month.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Sat Pal v. Nand Kishore 1983 RLR 19 wherein it has been held that the two questions namely whether the premises are required bona fide and whether the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation are a closely connected and have to be judged simultaneously and the burden to prove these facts is on the landlord. Further it has been observed that the word 'require denotes need and not mere wish or desire'. There is no dispute about this proposition of law. Under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act all ingredients are required to be proved by the landlord. In the instant case I am satisfied that the respondent needs premises in question under the tenancy of the petitioner. It is not his mere wish or desire. The respondent has in his possession only the first floor. If he gets the premises in question on the second floor i.e. Barsati room the need of the respondent would be satisfied as at present. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the respondent's son is married he would require another room. The Barsati on the second floor is needed by the respondent for the son. The size of the Barsati room is 15'X10'. Even if the son is married he can be accommodated with his wife in the Barsati room.

8. There is thus no infirmity in the judgment of the Additional Controller. The older of eviction passed by the Additional Controller is in accordance with law and there is no ground to interfere under Section 25B(8) of the Act. The revision petition is, thereforee, dismissed with no order as to costs.


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