2004 Supreme(Del) 604
High Court Of Delhi
BUNDHU KHAN - Appellant
Versus
AHMED HUSSAIN - Respondent
HOUSE RENT CONTROL REVISION 6 of 2004
Decided On : 08/11/2004
AMARJIT SINGH, S.K.VERMA
The main legal point established is that the nature of the premises being let out for residential purposes and the genuine need of the landlord for eviction were key factors influencing the court's decision.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - EVICTION - SECTION 14(1)(E) OF THE RENT CONTROL ACT - [SECTION 14(1)(E)] - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED BY THE COURT]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who is the landlord, filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(E) of the Rent Control Act, claiming that the tenanted premises were required for the residence of the petitioner's large family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the premises were let out for residential purposes, and even if a portion was used for non-residential purposes, it did not change the character of the premises. The court also found that the landlord's need for the premises was bona fide due to the large size of the family.
Issues: The issues revolved around the purpose for which the premises were let out and the bona fide requirement of the landlord for eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of the premises being let out for residential purposes was established, and the landlord's need for the premises was genuine due to the large size of the family.
Final Decision: Rent Control Revision No. 6/2004 and CM. Appl. 901/2004 were dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS PETITION CHALLENGES THE ORDER DATED 27. 09. 2003 OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, DELHI IN E-234/2002 WHEREBY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER WHILE ADJUDICATING ON A PETITION FOR EVICTION FILED ON 6. 10. 2002 UNDER SECTION 14 (1) (E) OF THE RENT CONTROL ACT (FOR SHORT THE ACT) HAS DECREED A SUM VIDE ORDER DATED 27. 9. 2002.
( 2 ) THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED BY THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER ARE AS FOLLOWS:
". . . . THAT THE PETITIONER (RESPONDENT HEREIN) CONSTRUCTED THE TENANTED PREMISES,i. E. ONE QUARTER IN PROPERTY NO. 69, GALI SCHOOL WALI, KHUREJI KHAS, DELHI - 51 IN THE YEAR 1979 AND LATER ON LET OUT TO THE RESPONDENT FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES ONLY IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 1982. THE PETITIONER IS THE OWNER/landlord OF THE PROPERTY AND THE RESPONDENT IS PAYING RENT TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND OBTAINING RENT RECEIPTS. THE PETITIONER IS RESIDING IN PROPERTY NO. 66, KHUREJI KHAS, DELHI WHICH IS ADJOINING TO THE TENANTED PREMISES OF THE RESPONDENT. THE PETITIONER IS RESIDING IN PROPERTY NO. 66, KHUREJI KHAS, DELHI ALONG WITH ELEVEN OTHER MEMBERS WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:- (1) WIFE OF THE PETITIONER NIFISA BEGUM, AGED 64 YEARS, (2) SAGIRUDDIN S/o THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS (3) SMT. FIRDOS BEGUM, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF THE PETITIONER, (4) MOHD. HANIF GRANDSON OF THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS OF MARRIAGEABLE AGE, (5) MOHD. JAHIR ANOTHER GRANDSON OF THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS - BOTH GRANDSONS ARE DOING BUSINESS, (6) MUSHARAF JAHAN - GRANDDAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONR AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, (7) SAEED AHMED-GRANDSON OF THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS STUDENT OF 9th CLASS, (8) MUSBEER FATIMAL - GRANDDAUGHTER AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, STUDENT OF 5th CLASS, (9) MOHD. TALIB - GRANDSON AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, STUDENT, (10) ABDUL REHMAN - GRANDSON AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, STUDENT, (11) SHAFIUR REHMAN AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS, GRANDSON OF THE PETITIONER. SO THERE ARE TWELVE MEMBERS RESIDING IN THE HOUSE. THE PETITIONER AND HIS SON SH. SAGIRUDDIN ARE RUNNING MILK DAIRY IN THE SAID PREMISES FOR THE LAST MANY DECADES AND EARNING THEIR LIVELIHOOD AND AT PRESENT THEY HAVE SIX BUFFALOES. THE SAID BUFFALOES ARE BEING TIED IN THE SAID PREMISES AND FEW PORTION/rooms ARE BEING USED TO KEEP CATTLE FOOD FOR THE ANIMALS IN THE SAID PROPERTY. TWO GRANDSONS OF THE PETITIONER ARE ALSO USING A ROOM AS A SHOP IN THE SAID PREMISES AND DOING THE BUSINESS OF GARMENTS/clothes FOR THEIR LIVELIHOOD FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS. IN PROPERTY NO. 66, KHUREJI KHAS, THERE ARE IN ALL THREE LIVING ROOMS TWO SMALL STORES FOR USING/keeping BUFFALOES, ONE SHOP, BESIDES OPEN AND COVERED VARANDAH, KITCHEN, LAVATORY AND BATHROOM ON THE GROUND FLOOR, TWO SMALL ROOMS AND TERRACE AND KITCHEN AND LAVATORY ON THE FIRST FLOOR (ONE ROOM ON THE FIRST FLOOR IS BEING USED FOR KEEPING COW DUNG CAKES ). SO, IN ALL THE PETITIONER AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE IN POSSESSION OF FOUR LIVING ROOMS IN THE SUIT PROPERTY. THE SAID ACCOMMODATION IS VERY INSUFFICIENT AND INADEQUATE FOR THE RESIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER AND HIS ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ARE DEPENDENT UPON HIM FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TENANTED PREMISES IS VERY CLOSE AND ADJOINING TO THE PREMISES OF THE PETITIONER, SO THE SAME IS VERY SUITABLE FOR THE RESIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER AND HIS OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. TWO GRANDSONS OF THE PETITIONER ARE OF MARRIAGEABLE AGES AND THEIR MARRIAGES ARE BEING DELAYED DUE TO SHORT OF ACCOMMODATION. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY NO. 69, KHUREJI KHAS, DELHI WHICH IS BEHIND THE TENANTED PREMISES OF THE RESPONDENT, ONE OLD TENANT OF THE PETITIONER SHRI SAFIQ BURNEY VACATED ONE ROOM, ONE STORE, KITCHEN, BATHROOM, LAVATORY, OPEN VERANDAH VERY RECENTLY AND THE SAID PORTION IS ALSO IN POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONER. THE SAID QUARTER HAS NO DIRECT APPROACH OR LINK WITH THE PREMISES WHER THE PETITIONER IS AT PRESENT RESIDING. THE SAID PORTION IS SITUATED IN DIFFERENT GALI AND VERY FAR AWAY FROM THE PRESENT RESIDENCE OF THE PETI