Back
High Court Of Delhi
K.B.MATHUR - Appellant
Versus
SARDAR BHAGWANT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. - Respondent
Civil 323 of 1986
Decided On : 05/06/1988
EVICTION - BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT - REASONABLY SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION - SOCIAL STATUS - WAY OF LIVING - NUMBER OF FAMILY MEMBERS - ASSESSMENT OF NEED - MALAFIDE INTENTION - CONCEALMENT OF ACCOMMODATION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 14(1)(E) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, owners of the property, filed an eviction petition against the respondent, a tenant, on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioners claimed that they needed the premises for themselves and their family members, including their two sons, a daughter, and a grandson. The respondent contested the petition, alleging that the petitioners had not come to court with clean hands, that the eviction was sought with a malafide purpose to increase the rent, and that the petitioners had concealed the actual accommodation available to them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were the owners and landlords of the premises in question and that the premises had been let out for residential purposes only. The court also found that the petitioners had not come to court with clean hands as they had failed to disclose the exact details of accommodation available with them and the number of family members dependent upon them. However, the court held that the petitioners had established their bonafide requirement for the premises as they were in possession of only three bed rooms with attached bath rooms, a pooja room and a big hall converted into drawing-cum-dining room with attached verandah and kitchen, which was not reasonably suitable for their needs.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had established their bonafide requirement for the premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act? 2. Whether the petitioners had come to court with clean hands? 3. Whether the petitioners had concealed the actual accommodation available to them?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In determining the bonafide requirement of the petitioners, the court considered the following factors: - The social status of the petitioners and their way of living. - The number of family members living with the petitioners. - The accommodation already available with the petitioners and their family members. - The petitioners' need for additional accommodation for their son, daughter, and grandson, who were living with them. 2. The court held that the petitioners had not come to court with clean hands as they had failed to disclose the exact details of accommodation available with them and the number of family members dependent upon them. However, the court found that this omission was not fatal to their case as they had subsequently disclosed the correct information and had established their bonafide requirement for the premises. 3. The court held that the petitioners had not concealed the actual accommodation available to them. The court found that the petitioners had only omitted to mention the servant quarters and the garages in their eviction petition, but these were not meant to be used for living purposes and therefore could not be considered as reasonably suitable accommodation for the petitioners and their family members.
Final Decision: The court allowed the civil revision, set aside the impugned judgment, and passed an eviction order against the respondent, granting six months time to the respondent for vacating the premises.
( 1 ) THIS civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act ) against order dated February 7, 1986 of Shri D. K. Saini, Additional Rent Controller, by which he has dismissed the eviction petition brought by the petitioners on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence as covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.
( 2 ) THE present eviction petition was brought on May 15, 1980, by Shri K. B. Mathur and his son Shri R. B. Mathur on the averments that two rooms, kitchen, bath and toilet as shown in the plan filed alongwith the petition, were let out to Sardarbhagwantsinghonmayl3,1975, under an oral agreement at the rental of Rs. 500. 00 per month for residential purposes and the two petitioners, being the owners and landlords of this property No. 18-Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, in which the tenancy premises are located on the first floor required the said premises bonafide for residence for themselves and for the family members dependant upon them and they have no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Bhagwant Singh had died during the pendency of the proceedings and his widow Smt. Ishar Kaur was substituted as legal representative. In the original eviction petition it was pleaded that petitioner No. 1 is a retired Chairman the of Railway Board and is presently director of eight companies which were enumerated in the petition and he had been also Chairman of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited from 1960 to 1965 and Chairman of Hindustan Machine Tools from 1965 to 1968 and Chairman of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Corporation in the year 1967 and Chairman of Triveni Structurals for the year 1966-67 and is also a trustee of Thapar Charitable Trust. Calcutta, and is assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax and being director of eight companies, he has to have conferences, meetings and consultations with the officials of the various eight companies at this house and he feels dire necessity of having at least two separate rooms for himself. It was mentioned that accommodation available for residence to the petitioners is only one drawing-cum-dining room, two bed rooms of which one is used by petitioner No. 1 himself and the other by his wife, one small pooja room, one pantry, bath room and W. C. , Verandah and courtyard. It was pleaded that the petitioner has only two sons, namely, petitioner No. 2-R. B. Mathur and one K. C. Mathur. R. B. Mathur is stated to be a Class I Officer being a Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, at the time of filing the petition, was posted outside Delhi and he has one daughter and one son and the said daughter was to come to Delhi for further studies after completing her school education in Kotah and she would be needing a separate room for sleeping and for her studies. The son of petitioner No. 2 was also to be of marriageable age and his marriage was also to be performed at the premises in question. It was also mentioned that the second son of petitioner No. 1 KC. Mathur is the General Manager of Rtanakar Shipping, Calcutta, and Director of Hindustan Times and Neel Giri Tea Estates and his grandson Vivek Mathur is also to come to Delhi for studying in College, and would be needing a separate room.
( 3 ) IT was emphasized that petitioners 1 and 2 and their families are persons of high status and are accustomed to high standard of living and petitioner No. 1 s married daughter and her children also quite often visit the petitioners at the premises in question and various other guests also come and stay for short periods and as petitioner and his wife are aged persons, their married daughter, who is living in Delhi, has to visit them quite often and occasionally spends her weekends with them and petitioner No. 2, having a transferable job, has to face the transfer every two or three years, which results in disturbing the academic career of his children necessitating that the
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
