Back
1988 Supreme(Del) 44
High Court Of Delhi
A.N.PARIKH - Appellant
Versus
N.H.NAQVI - Respondent
Civil 641 of 1987
Decided On : 02/08/1988
C.M.OBEROI, ISHVAR SAHAY MATHUR, L.M.Sanghvi, PUNAM, V.K.Makhija
The premises in question had been let out to the petitioner only for residential purposes and the respondent-landlord bonafide requires the demised premises for occupation for residence for himself and for his wife.
Headnote:
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - SECTION 14(1)(E) - EVICTION - GROUNDS - RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES - COMPOSITE PURPOSES - SUITABILITY OF ACCOMMODATION - ORAL GIFT - MALAFIDE - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the eviction order passed against him on the ground of eviction covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in respect of the southern unit of house No. Z-7, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the plan Ex. AW1/1. The petitioner challenged the order of eviction on two grounds, firstly that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that the premises in question had been let out to the petitioner-tenant only for residential purposes is perverse and wrong and secondly, that the Additional Rent Controller has wrongly come to the conclusion that the respondent-landlord is not in possession of alternate reasonably suitable accommodation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the premises in question had been let out to the petitioner only for residential purposes and that the respondent-landlord bonafide requires the demised premises for occupation for residence for himself and for his wife. The court also held that the northern portion of the house is not conveniently available to the landlord and his wife for their residence and that the making of the gift during the pendency of the case after leave to defend application of the tenant had been allowed loses importance.
Issues: 1. Whether the premises in question had been let out to the petitioner only for residential purposes? 2. Whether the respondent-landlord bonafide requires the demised premises for occupation for residence for himself and for his wife? 3. Whether the northern portion of the house is conveniently available to the landlord and his wife for their residence? 4. Whether the making of the gift during the pendency of the case after leave to defend application of the tenant had been allowed loses importance?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the premises in question had been let out to the petitioner only for residential purposes based on the following reasons: - The written agreement between the parties clearly stated that the premises had been let out for residential purposes only. - The petitioner did not specifically controvert the fact that the premises in question had been let out to him for residential purposes only in his reply to the legal notice served by the respondent. - The petitioner had been using the premises for his office work as well, but the respondent had not raised any objection to such user. 2. The court held that the respondent-landlord bonafide requires the demised premises for occupation for residence for himself and for his wife based on the following reasons: - The respondent had retired from a very high Government job and had constructed the present house for his own residence. - The respondent and his wife are very much advanced in ages and need at least some bed room on the ground floor for their residence, which is not available in the northern portion of the house. - The northern portion of the house has been given by the landlord for use and occupation by his adopted daugter and daughter's family. 3. The court held that the northern portion of the house is not conveniently available to the landlord and his wife for their residence based on the following reasons: - The landlord and his wife cannot possibly require that their beloved adopted daughter Shahida and her family members should not stay in the northern portion on their regular visits to India every year. - The landlord and his wife would not have any comfortable living in the northern portion because they cannot possibly require that their beloved adopted daughter Shahida and her family members should not stay in the northern portion on their regular visits to India every year. 4. The court held that the making of the gift during the pendency of the case after leave to defend application of the tenant had been allowed loses importance based on the following reasons: - The landlord had lot of love and affection for her adopted daughter and the transaction of oral gift is not a dubious one or smacks of any malafide on the part of the landlord. - The landlord took hurried steps to make the oral gift of the said northern portion of the house after leave to defend application of the tenant was allowed, but that would not make that transaction of gift malafide or illegal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and upheld the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller.
( 1 ) SHRI A. N. Pareekh, tenant, has brought this petitionunder Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter REFERRED TO toas the Act ) challenging the eviction order dated 2/04/1987, of Shri Premkumar, Additional Rent Controller, passed against him on the ground ofeviction covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act inrespect of the southern unit of house No. Z-7, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, asshown in red colour in the plan Ex. AW1/1.
( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order of eviction on two grounds,firstly that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that the premises inquestion had been let out to the petitioner-tenant only for residential purposesis perverse and wrong and secondly, that the Additional Rent Controller haswrongly come to the conclusion that the respondent-landlord is not in possession of alternate reasonably suitable accommodation.
( 3 ) THE facts, in brief, are that the respondent has been holdinghigh official positions in the Government as he held the post of Secretary,central Board of Revenue, later on Commissioner of Income-Tax, Directorof Inspection, Income-Tax Investigation, a job equivalent to the post of Jointsecretary, Ministry of Finance and he retired as permanent Commissioner ofincome Tax in the year 1964. He was occupying house No. C-1/7, Hardingavenue, New Delhi, which was quite a palatial house comprising of three bedrooms, dining, drawing rooms, office rooms verandah; garage, servant quartersand lawns. He purchased the plot of the property in question in the year1959 vide sale deed, certified copy of which is Ex. AW 10/1 and he completed theconstruction on the said plot in July 1966, which comprises of two units, namely,southern unit and northern unit, each having the accommodation comprisingof drawing room, dining room, kitchen, bath room on the ground floor, threebed rooms, two bath rooms and covered verandah on the first floor and aservant quarter with lavatory-cum-bath room over the garage and the northernportion also has a barsati floor comprising of one big room converted intotwo rooms and facility of toilet. Since the completion of the house, the respondent lived in that house with his wife upto April 1969. Respondent hasno issue of his own, his wife has a daughter from her previous marriage andaw1 Shahida Latif is the grand daughter of respondent s wife from thatdaughter. It is undisputed before me that from her very birth, Shahida Latif (since about 1939) has been brought up by the respondent as his daughteralthough according to the tenets of Personal Mohammedan Law applicableto the respondent he could not legality adopt any daughter yet he has beentreating AWI as his daughter for all these years. It is the respondent whogot her married. From the wedlock two daughters have been born in the year1967 and 1969. Shahida Lalif was married in the year 1964. Respondenthad got assignment as Additional General Manager in M/s. Geep Flash Lightindustries Limited, Allahabad and he joined that post with effect from 1/05/1969. His wife also joined him at Allahabad in July or August 1969. Respondent s adopted daughter and her family were allowed to live in thenorthern portion of the house for residential purposes but after the respondent swife also shifted to Allahabad, the entire house was given in the use andoccupation of AWI and her family members and the respondent had taken allhis luggage from the said house to Allahabad in August 1969. It is thecase of the respondent that after about a year and a half Shahid Latif in oneof her letters apprised him about some theft having taken place in theneighbourhood and on account of security reasons and also that southren halfof the portion was kept neat and clean that respondent decided to let out thesouthern portion of the house for residential purposes for short durations sothat the same could become available to the respondent and his wife whenresdondent s assignment at Allahabad was to come to
