Vijender Jain, J. (oral)

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision has been filed aggrieved by an order passed by Additional Rent Controller on 18th April, 1995 whereby an eviction order was passed under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

( 2 ) MR. Ishwar Sahai, Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that accommodation available with the respondents was sufficient and the finding of the Additional Rent Controller was perverse on this score. He has further contended that respondent No. 1 Bhagwati Seth has one bachelor son who is about 50 years old and another son Arun Seth is not residing in India as he is settled with his family in United States of America. He has further contended that another co-owner of the premises Dr. Balraj Seth is 70 years old. His wife is no more. He is occupying the entire first floor consisting of two bed rooms, drawing and dining room. His one son has died. Widow of that son has got re-married. The deceased son has three children. They also live with their mother and they do not require any accommodation in the promises in question. He has further contended that another son of Dr. Balraj is employed in Coal India and presently posted at Nagpur where he has constructed his house and he has no intention to come back to Delhi and, therefore, he does not require any accommodation in the premises in question. He has further contended that Dr. Balraj Seth has got one daughter who is also settled in Kuwait alongwith her children.

( 3 ) MR. ISHWAR Sahai has contended that another branch of co-owners is Vikram Seth. His wife has also died and he has got two sons aged 19 and 15 years old at best they require one room for them. He has further contended that another another co-owner Vidur Seth is not residing in India and he alongwith his family reside in United States of America. It has also been contended by Mr. Ishwar Sahai that accommodation available to all the co-owners are two bed rooms, one drawing-cum dining room in the hands of Bhagwati Seth. There are four bed rooms i. e. two bed rooms on the first floor and two bed rooms on the second floor in the hands of Vikram Seth. Mr. Ishwar Sahai- learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that an additional room has been constructed on the second floor in the portion of the flat where Bhagwati seth is residing.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that respondents are a family of status. They require the rooms for those family members who may be abroad but they keep on visiting their parents or relatives. It is also contended by Mr. Malhotra learned Counsel for the respondents that accommodation is also required for the married daughters of the family as well as for other friends and relatives who visit the respondents. I have given my careful consideration to arguments advanced by Counsel for the parties.

( 5 ) THE whole premises of the argument of the petitioner is based on an assumption that it is the choice of a tenant as to how the premises has to be used by a landlord. The tenant cannot compel a landlord to live in a particular fashion and method until and unless the requirement is totally shown as mala fide or not genuine. In the case in hand from the arguments of counsel for the parties as well from the perusal of the record, minimum rooms which are required by the family of the respondents if thirteen. Bhagwati Seth requires one rooms. Her Bachelor son who is 50 years of age can not be compelled to stay with his mother. Another son, who has not been mentioned by learned Counsel for the petitioner, is a professor. Kiran Seth, who is a Professor, requires one room for himself as well as one study room. That makes the requirement of the family of Bhagwati Seth to a minimum of four rooms. It can not be said that Arun Seth another son of Bhagwati Seth will never visit India. Therefore, one room is also required for son of Bhagwati Seth or friends or other relatives. That makes the requireme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document