Back
High Court Of Delhi
B.R.MALHOTRA - Appellant
Versus
M.R.KUKREJA (DECEASED) THROUGH L.R. - Respondent
Civil Revision 507 of 1985
Decided On : 11/12/1987
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 14(1)(E) - EVICTION - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - LANDLORD'S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION - ASSESSMENT - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - COURT'S POWER TO INTERFERE WITH CONTROLLER'S FINDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the owner of a house, filed an eviction petition against the respondent, a tenant, on the ground of bonafide requirement of residence under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioner claimed that the accommodation available to him and his family members was insufficient and that he required the demised premises for residence for himself and for the members of his family.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on the grounds that the petitioner had not disclosed the existence of another room in the courtyard and that the petitioner's son, who was studying in Andhra Pradesh, did not require the demised premises for residence. The court held that the Rent Controller had erred in ignoring the need of the petitioner's son, who had since completed his education and was now living with the petitioner in Delhi, and in treating the tin shed in the courtyard as a living room.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had bonafide requirement of the demised premises for residence for himself and for the members of his family? 2. Whether the Rent Controller had erred in ignoring the need of the petitioner's son, who had since completed his education and was now living with the petitioner in Delhi? 3. Whether the Rent Controller had erred in treating the tin shed in the courtyard as a living room?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner had bonafide requirement of the demised premises for residence for himself and for the members of his family. The court considered the following factors in reaching this conclusion: a. The petitioner's family had grown in size since the premises were let out to the respondent. b. The petitioner's son had completed his education and was now living with the petitioner in Delhi. c. The petitioner's daughter was studying in college and the younger daughter was studying in school. d. The petitioner's aged mother was also living with him. e. The accommodation available to the petitioner and his family members was insufficient. 2. The court held that the Rent Controller had erred in ignoring the need of the petitioner's son, who had since completed his education and was now living with the petitioner in Delhi. The court held that the son's need for accommodation could not be ignored merely because he was getting a stipend of Rs. 1,000 per month. 3. The court held that the Rent Controller had erred in treating the tin shed in the courtyard as a living room. The court held that the tin shed was not a regular room and could not be considered a living room.
Final Decision: The court allowed the civil revision, set aside the impugned order, and passed the eviction order against the respondent on the ground covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The court granted six months time to the respondent for vacating the premises in question.
( 1 ) THIS Civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the order May 9,1985, of Shri J. M. Malik, Rent Controller, by which he had dismissed the eviction petition brought by the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement of residence covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act.
( 2 ) IT is, indeed, not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of house No. E-111, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. The family of the petitioner comprises of himself, his wife, one son, two daughters and the petitioner s, mother. The petitioner s father, who was alive at the time of filing of the petition, is stated to have died. It is also not in dispute that the respondent was 149 inducted as a tenant on the first floor of the permises for residential purposes in the year 1972. The petitioner alonwith family members is in occupation of the ground floor of the said house which comprises of three bed rooms, drawing-cum-dining room and other amenities. The petitioner s son was studying in Engineering College In Andhra Pradesh at the time the eviction petition was filed but during the pendency of this petition it is asserted that the son has come back from Andhra Pradesh and is now completing his Master s Degree in Eagineering in Delhi College of Engineering at New Delhi and the petitioner s daughter is a student of B. Sc. in Gargi College and the younger daughter is studying in Lady Irwin School. The petitioner himself is employed as a Senior Scientist in the Central Road Research Institute and is drawing salary of Rs. 6,000. 00 per month while his son is getting a stipend of Rs. 1,000. 00 per month. It was the case of the petitioner that at the time the premises were let out to the respondent-Sh. M. R. Kukreja (since deceased), the children of the petitioner were young in ages and with the passage of time his children have grown in ages and his son has become of marriageable age. The accommodation already available with the petitioner and his family members has become unsuitable and thus the petitioner bonafide requires the premises in occupation of the tenant for residence for himself and for family members dependent upon him. I may mention that the tenant-M. R. Kukreja had died during the pendency of the present petition and his widow alone has been substituted as respondent as she alone is coverd by the amended definition of the tenant. The Controller has negatived the case of the petitioner on two grounds, firstly that the petitioner has not come with clean hands inasmuch as he has not disclosed in the petition or the plan filed alongwith the petition that there was another room available to the petitioner on the ground floor and secondly, that the petitioner s son was studying in Andhra Pradesh and it was not to believe that he would be visiting Delhi quite often so that his need for residence could be looked into. At that time the petitioner s son was to complete his studies in Andhra Pradesh by August 1986. It was also mentioned by the Rent Controller that the petitioner is not financially so well off so as to for the rental income and thus, it is not proved that the petitioner is not in possession of reasonably accommodation and he bonafide requires the demised premises for residence for himself and for family dependent upon him.
( 3 ) IT is now well settled that the landlord is not the sole judge of his requirements and the bonafide need and the requirement of the landlord has to be assessed by the court objectively. In order to see whether a particular landlord is in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation or not has to be assessed from the social status of the landlord and the financial position and the way of living to which the landlord is accustomed and the number of the family members living with the landlord. It is also to be seen by the court as to whether this ground has been set up with some ulterior motive or is a ge
AI
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
