Back
1998 Supreme(Del) 586
High Court Of Delhi
KAILASH CHAND - Appellant
Versus
CHAND - Respondent
Decided On : 08/08/1998
The landlord's possession of rental premises does not debar him to claim that his requirement for his own property is not bona fide.
Headnote:
EVICTION - SECTION 14 (1) (E) READ WITH SECTION 25-B OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1959 - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - LANDLORD'S POSSESSION OF RENTAL PREMISES DOES NOT DEBAR HIM FROM CLAIMING THAT HIS REQUIREMENT FOR HIS OWN PROPERTY IS NOT BONA FIDE - REQUIREMENT OF ALL THE PETITIONERS FOR THE SAME PREMISES CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ACCOMMODATION WHICH MAY BE IN THEIR TENANCY AT DIFFERENT PLACES AS THE FAMILY IS EXPECTED TO STAY IN ONE PREMISES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, who purchased undivided half shares in a property, filed an eviction petition against the respondent, alleging that he was a tenant in a portion of the property and that they required the premises for their own use. The respondent claimed that the petitioners were not the owners of the premises and that he had been using the premises for washing clothes for the last 100 years.
Finding of the Court:
The Additional Rent Controller rejected the eviction petition, holding that the petitioners had not proved that their requirement for accommodation was bona fide. The court found that the petitioners were already possessed of accommodation which was under their tenancy and that the requirement of petitioners 3 and 4 had not been established.
Issues: Whether the landlord's possession of rental premises will debar him to claim that his requirement for his own property is not bona fide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the possession by the landlord of rental premises will not debar him to claim that his requirement for his own property is not bona fide. The court further held that the requirement of all the petitioners for the same premises cannot be determined by taking into account the accommodation which may be in their tenancy at different places as the family is expected to stay in one premises.
Final Decision: The court allowed the eviction petition and set aside the impugned order dated March 1, 1996. Respondent is, however, granted time of six months to vacate the tenanted premises from the date of passing this order.
( 1 ) THE matter was called out for hearing on 5th August, 1998 as well as 6th August, 1998. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent on any of these two dates.
( 2 ) THE present petition is directed against the Order dated March 1, 1996 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by which an application for eviction of the petitioners filed under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act ) was rejected.
( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claimed to have purchased undivided half shares i. e. petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and petitioners 3 and 4 jointly by two separate Sale Deeds in property No. 2206 Ward No. VIII Gali Shankar Kali Masjid, Delhi. Respondent is alleged to be a tenant in respect of the portion shown in red in the site plan on a monthly rent of Rs. 3. 00 which was let out to him by the original owner for residential purposes. It is next alleged that petitioners 1 and 2 who are husband and wife were residing in portion of property No. 2255 as licensee since the property was owned by Smt. Sarla Devi and Smt. Indra Devi respectively. The family of petitioners 1 and 2 comprised of one son and three daughters aged about 13-8 years at the time of filing of the eviction petition. They were students and petitioners 1 and 2 required one bed room for themselves, one bed room-cum-study room for their three daughters as well as one drawing room, one dining room, one Pooja room and one room for guest accommodation. Similarly, petitioners 3 and 4 have been residing in the property No. 2161 as licensees owned by Munna Lal and his wife Smt. Sharbati Devi. They were also allegedly asked to vacate the said premises. It is further alleged that respondent is not residing in the suit premises but resides in his acquired residential house No. 944, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the suit premises is in occupation of an unauthorised and illegal occupant.
( 4 ) THE petitioners, it is contended, have no other residential house in Delhi except the suit property which they have purchased. Leave to Defend the suit was granted to the respondent and he filed written statement wherein it is alleged that the petitioners are not the owners of the premises as one Kundan was the owner of the same in 1947 and he migrated to Pakistan and thereafter the property continued to be unclaimed. The respondent is a washerman by profession and the premises has been used for washing the clothes for the last about 100 years. The purpose, therefore, is residential-cum-commercial. The respondent further alleged that petitioners are the owners of the following properties:
1. Property No. 2214-16 Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. 2. Property No. 3068, Kucha Raja Sohan Lal, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. (These two properties allegedly consists of 18 rooms ). 3. Property No. 2161, Gali Sudama, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi- this property allegedly havs 8 rooms and partly occupied by them. 4. Property No. 2252-55 Gali Dakotan, Delhi which they sold in the year 1988, for 8 lacs. 5. Property No. WA-13, Shakarpur, Delhi which is double storeyed and have 10 rooms, partly occupied. 6. Property at Lawrance Road.
( 5 ) REPLICATION was filed wherein the averments made by the respondent were vehemently denied and the contents of the eviction petition were reiterated. The learned Additional Rent Controller examined the ingredients of the provisions of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act and came to the following conclusions:
(A) The petitioners have proved that they are the owners of the premises; (B) the purpose of letting the premisses was residential; (C) the bona fide requirement was held as not established and the following finding was recorded in in paragraph 11 of the judgment which reads as follows: "11. It has been argued by ld. counsel for the petitioners that relation of his wife with her in-laws are strained so he wants to shift to his own house therefore the
