Back
High Court Of Delhi
AMRIT LAL - Appellant
Versus
JAGPAL SINGH VERMA - Respondent
Decided On : 07/25/1996
DRC ACT - SECTION 14 (1) (E) READ WITH SECTION 25B - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - GROWING FAMILY - SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION - EVICTION - INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON COURT'S DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the landlord, filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the respondent, the tenant, on the grounds of bona fide requirement and lack of suitable alternative accommodation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had failed to prove that he had only one room available to him and that the verandah had been converted into a room. The court also found that the petitioner had not filed a site plan to prove the accommodation in his occupation, but held that this was not a requirement of law if the accommodation could be clearly made out otherwise.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had bona fide requirement of the premises for occupation as a residence for himself and his family? 2. Whether the petitioner had suitable alternative accommodation?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had bona fide requirement of the premises for occupation as a residence for himself and his family, considering the growing needs of a growing family and the fact that both the petitioner and his wife were employed and needed accommodation according to their status. The court also held that the petitioner did not have suitable alternative accommodation, as the premises in question had two rooms, a kitchen, a bath, a WC, and a garage.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order rejecting the eviction petition and directed the respondent to vacate the premises within six months from the date of the order.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed against an order of dismissal of eviction petition filed under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (b) of Delhi Rent Control Act.
( 2 ) THE facts giving an occasion to the present revision petition are as under: Undisputedly, the respondent is tenant of the petitioner in respect of two rooms, one kitchen, one bath and front and back covered portico, garage on the ground floor in premises No. 74 (C) Phase III LIG Ashok Vihar, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 350. 00. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has wife, three children in his family and the son of the respondent was running his workshop in the premises. The petitioner is living in a tenanted premises. The dispute between the parties was confined to two points before the Learned Additional Rent Controller; firstly to the purpose of letting of the premises; and secondly to the point of bona fide requirements of the petitioner as he allegedly wanted to raise the rent and he has got suitable alternative accommodation.
( 3 ) THE matter was hotly contested before the learned Trialourt. The learned Additional Rent Controller took the view that the petitioner was the owner/ landlord of the suit premises; and the premises was let out for residential purpose. However, the learned Additional Rent Controller took the view that the petitioner had failed to prove that he bona fide required the suit premises and dismissed the eviction petition.
( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed on the ground that the evidence had not been seen in the light of proper perspective. The learned Additional Rent Controller failed to take note of the evidence of the respondent about the extent of accommodation available with the petitioner. The learned Additional Rent Controller also failed to take into consideration the growing need of a growing family. And it had been wrongly held that the petition was moved with mala fide intentions and due to extraneous considerations. Hence the revision petition.
( 5 ) I have gone through the record of the learned Trial Court as well as the revision petition. Before proceeding further let us see the provisions under Section 25b (8) of Section 25 of the DRC Act which empowers the High Court to call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto. Sub Section (8) of Section 25b of the DRC Act reads as under :-
"no appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this Section: Provided that the High Court may for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. "
( 6 ) IN S. K. Gupta and Another v. R. C. Jain, AIR 1984 (71) Delhi 187 scope of revision under Sub-section (8) of Section 25b of the DRC Act, as distinct from scope of revision under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code was considered in the light of judgment in Jagatjit Industries Limited v. Rajiv Gupta, (1980 18 DLT 34 and following observations were made in para 37 at page 198:
". . . . . . . . THE revisional jurisdiction u/s. 25b (8) of the Act is wider than under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. The High Court under this provision has power to reverse the finding which is perverse, contrary to evidence or based on no evidence. The phrase according to law in Section 25b (8) of the Act refers to the decision as a whole, and is not to be equated to error of law or of fact simpliciter. It refers to the overall decision which must be according to law which it would not be, if there is a miscarriage of justice due to a mistake of law. These observations were made by the Supreme Court in Harishankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chaudhry, AIR 1963 SC 698 while interpreting Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, a provision si
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
