Back
1983 Supreme(Del) 216
High Court Of Delhi
HARGUN DAS - Appellant
Versus
REWA CHAND - Respondent
Decided On : 07/29/1983
The Rent Controller should grant leave to contest an eviction petition only if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses facts that would prima facie entitle him to leave to defend. The landlord's need for additional accommodation must be genuine and bona fide, and the increase in rent must be justified.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - LEAVE TO CONTEST EVICTION PETITION - SECTION 25-B (5) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - LANDLORD'S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - MALAFIDE INTENTION - INCREASE IN RENT - SALE OF PROPERTY - AFFIDAVIT OF TENANT - SUFFICIENCY OF FACTS - DISCRETION OF RENT CONTROLLER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a tenant, challenged the Rent Controller's refusal to grant leave to contest an eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The landlord claimed that he needed additional accommodation for his grown-up children and for the stay of his married daughter, her husband, and children. The tenant contended that the landlord's intention was to enhance the rent or sell the property at a high price.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Rent Controller was correct in refusing to grant leave to contest the eviction petition. The affidavit filed by the tenant did not disclose facts that would prima facie entitle him to leave to defend. The landlord's need for additional accommodation was genuine and bona fide. The increase in rent was justified by the additional facility provided to the tenant. The allegation of the landlord's malafide intention to enhance the rent or sell the property was vague and frivolous.
Issues: 1. Whether the Rent Controller erred in refusing to grant leave to contest the eviction petition? 2. Whether the landlord's need for additional accommodation was genuine and bona fide? 3. Whether the increase in rent was justified? 4. Whether the allegation of the landlord's malafide intention to enhance the rent or sell the property was vague and frivolous?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 25-B (5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 enjoins a duty on the Rent Controller to grant leave to contest the petition if facts disclosed in the affidavit of the tenant are such as would disentitle the landlord to obtain an order of eviction. 2. The landlord is entitled to live comfortably in his own house and it is bona fide for him to ask for a room for each of his children. 3. The landlord's need for additional accommodation can be justified by the requirement of his married daughters also. 4. The affidavit of the tenant must disclose facts which are sufficiently detailed, clear, and definite and not vague or obscure, being bare allegations. 5. The Rent Controller has to be very circumspect and discreet in the exercise of the power vesting in him u/s 25-B (5) and he can ill-afford to act mechanically.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) RESPDT. sued petitioner for eviction u/s 14 (1) (e) on the plea that with passage of time his children (sons-23 and 20, daughter 17 and 13) have become old enough so as to need separate rooms and his married daughter keeps on visiting and his present accommodation had become inadequate. Petitioner s brother and attorney who is living in the premises filed affidavit for leave to contest alleging that respdt. does not bona fide needs more space. Respdt. replied this by filing counter-affidavit. The Controller refused to give leave and petitioner moved High Court. ] After giving above, judgment proceeds :
( 2 ) SECTION 25-B (5) enjoins a duty on the Rent Controller to grant leave to contest the petition if facts disclosed in the affidavit of the tenant are such as would disentitle the landlord to obtain an order of eviction. Therefore, while examining the application for leave to contest the Rent Controller has ordinarily to confine to the facts disclosed in the affidavit and it is not permissible to him to look to other documents which are on the record but which are not admitted and which are still to be proved for coming to any prima facie decision as if it be a stage for a fulfledged trial of the issues arising from the facts stated in the affidavit. The Supreme Court has enunciated the legal position in Precision Steel and Engg. v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518, as below :
"it would be open to landlord to contest application of the tenant seeking leave to contest and for that purpose he can file an affidavit in reply but production and admission and evaluation of documents at that stage has no place. The Controller has to confine himself to the affidavit filed the tenant under sub-section (4) and the reply, if any. On perusing the affidavit filed by the tenant and the reply if any filed by landlord the Controller has to pose to himself the only question, does the affidavit disclose, not prove, facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession on the ground specified in cl. (e) of the proviso to Section 14 (1)? The Controller is not to record a finding on disputed questions of facts or his preference of one set of affidavits against the other set of affidavits. "
( 3 ) THE only document relevant for consideration at this stage is the affidavit filed by the tenant and the only precondition for grant of leave is that the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground mentioned in section 14 (1) (e ). Such being the legal position it is now to be seen whether the affidavit of the petitioner in the instant case discloses such facts as would dis- entitle the respondent landlord to have an order of eviction against him.
( 4 ) IT bears repetition that the, wife and three grown up children, viz. , one son and two daughters who are studying in college/school are residing with him on the ground floor of this house. The learned counsel for the respondent has canvassed with considerable fervour that each member of the landlord s family is entitled to a separate room for himself/herself and as such the accommodation in possession of the respondent is grossly inadequate and insufficient for his and members of his family. Reliance in this connection has been placed on a couple of decision of this Court, viz. , Krishan Kumar v. Vimla Sehgal, 1976 R. C. R. 249 and Sarla Mittla v. K. C. Jain 21 (1982) DLT 334. In the former case, Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. , observed that :
". . . NO one can say that when the landlord requires one separate room for each member of his family including himself and his wife, his requirement is unreasonable. The law does not expect the landlord to sacrifice his comforts and live a crowded life in his own house when he can have better comfort. The view that son and daughter can be huddled together in one room is unrea
