Back
High Court Of Delhi
PARVIN SARIN - Appellant
Versus
MANBIR SINGH, BALWANT KAUR, RAVINDER SARIN - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 425 of 1980
Decided On : 03/20/1981
EVICTION - GROUNDS - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - PARTIAL EVICTION - SURRENDER OF TENANCY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 14 (1) (E) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958.
Fact of the Case:
Tenant Parvin Sarin challenged an eviction order passed against him under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on grounds of non-payment of rent, bona fide requirement by the landlord, and partial eviction.
Finding of the Court:
1. The court upheld the finding that the premises were let for residential purposes, despite the appellant's claim that they were also used for commercial purposes. 2. The court found that the landlords, an advocate and his family, had a bona fide requirement for the premises as they lacked suitable residential accommodation. 3. The court rejected the appellant's objection that the eviction petition did not disclose a cause of action, as the appellant had not raised it in the written statement and evidence had been recorded without protest. 4. The court held that the appellant's failure to specifically plead the purpose of letting in the eviction petition was not fatal, as no prejudice was caused to the tenant and the parties had led evidence on the issue. 5. The court found that the landlord's requirement of the premises was genuine, considering their family size, status, and the inadequacy of their current accommodation. 6. The court dismissed the appellant's argument that the requirement of the servant could not be taken into consideration, as the landlords had been keeping a servant and the servant quarters could not be used by them for living purposes. 7. The court rejected the appellant's contention that the Tribunal and Controller had ignored material evidence, finding that the evidence on record supported the findings of fact. 8. The court held that the eviction petition did not pertain to a part of the premises under the appellant's tenancy, as the servant room in question was never part of the tenancy and the basement room had been surrendered due to seepage of sub-soil water.
Issues: 1. Whether the premises were let for residential purposes or both residential and commercial purposes. 2. Whether the landlords had a bona fide requirement for the premises. 3. Whether the eviction petition disclosed a cause of action. 4. Whether the appellant's failure to specifically plead the purpose of letting in the eviction petition was fatal. 5. Whether the landlord's requirement of the premises was genuine. 6. Whether the requirement of the servant could be taken into consideration. 7. Whether the Tribunal and Controller had ignored material evidence. 8. Whether the eviction petition pertained to a part of the premises under the appellant's tenancy.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The purpose of letting is a finding of fact, and the court will not interfere unless it is based on no evidence or is perverse. 2. The bona fide requirement of the landlord is a question of fact, and the court will not interfere unless it is based on no evidence or is perverse. 3. An objection that the eviction petition does not disclose a cause of action must be taken at the earliest opportunity, and if not raised in the written statement, it cannot be raised in second appeal. 4. The failure to specifically plead the purpose of letting in the eviction petition is not fatal if no prejudice is caused to the tenant and the parties have led evidence on the issue. 5. The landlord's requirement of the premises is genuine if they lack suitable residential accommodation, considering their family size, status, and the inadequacy of their current accommodation. 6. The requirement of the servant can be taken into consideration if the landlords have been keeping a servant and the servant quarters cannot be used by them for living purposes. 7. The court will not interfere with findings of fact made by the Tribunal and Controller unless they are based on no evidence or are perverse. 8. An eviction petition does not pertain to a part of the premises under the appellant's tenancy if the disputed room was never part of the tenancy or has been surrendered.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's second appeal, upholding the eviction order passed against him.
( 1 ) THIS second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act ) filed by Parvin Sarin, tenant, is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th September, 1980 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 1979 of the Additional Controller passing an order of eviction against the appellant. Respondents I and 2 filed an eviction petition against the appellant being tenant and Ravinder Sarin, Respondent No. 3 the alleged Subtenant on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (e) of the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. The ground under clause (b) has been negatived by the Additional Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal and is no more in dispute before me. As regards non-payment of rent under clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, it has been held by the Controller and the Tribunal that the valid notice was served, that the tenant neither paid nor tendered arrears of rent within two months from the notice of demand, and that the appellant-tenant had complied with the order under Section 15 (1) of the Act. Under these cirumstances, it was held that the tenant-appellant had enjoyed the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act and is not liable to eviction on that ground.
( 2 ) THE real contest before me is on the ground of eviction mentioned in Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. The Controller and the Tribunal have held that respondents I and 2 are the owners, that the premises were let for residential purposes, that the respondents bona fide required the premises and they have no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It has also been held that the eviction petition is not bad for partial eviction. In other words, it was held that the eviction petition partains to the tenancy premises.
( 3 ) MANBIR Singh, respondent No. 1 is an Advocate. Respondent No. 2 is his mother. The premises in suit consist of three rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine, Barsati and terrace on the second floor and a garage on the ground floor which are shown in red and blue in the plan Ex. A. W 8/1. S. N. Sarin, father of the appellant who died in December, 1969 had taken these premises in suit and one room on the basement of the property in 1944 or 1949. After his death the appellant became a tenant. The agreed rent was Rs. 60. 00 per month besides water and electricity charges but the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 42. 50 per month.
( 4 ) THE first dispute relates to the purpose of letting. The Additional Controller and the Tribunal on appraisal of the evidence on record have returned the finding that the premises were let for residential purposes. It is admitted that S. N. Sarin, father of the appellant was in Government service and therefore it seems to me that he never took the premises for commercial purposes as is now being contended by the appellant. The appellant contends that his father used to carry on business as a Government Contractor. It is not possible to believe that during government service he started business side by side with his service. It is in evidence that the premises have always been used by the appellant and his father for residential purposes. There if however an allegation that the room on the basement was being used for storing the building material. The purpose of letting is a finding of fact and there is no reason to upset that finding. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that there is no allegation in the eviction application that the premises were let for residential purposes and therefore the eviction petition should be dismissed on this ground. In other words, he says that the eviction petition does not disclose any cause of action. The ground of eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act as worded by respondents I and 2 in their eviction petition reads as under.
"the premises are residential and arc required bona fide by the petitioners for themselv
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
