Back
High Court Of Delhi
RAM GOPAL - Appellant
Versus
WASHESHWAR NATH - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 284 of 1977
Decided On : 06/01/1979
LANDLORD AND TENANT - RENT CONTROL - EVICTION - GROUNDS - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - REASONABLY SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 14 (1) (E) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - WHETHER LANDLORD HAS NO OTHER REASONABLY SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION - WHETHER PREMISES WERE LET OUT FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES - WHETHER REQUIREMENT OF LANDLORD IS BONA FIDE - FINDINGS OF FACT BY COURTS BELOW - INTERFERENCE BY HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Landlord filed a suit for eviction of tenant from a portion of a house on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide requirement for his own use and family members. The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal ordered eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. The tenant appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
1. The petition for eviction was maintainable as the landlord had impliedly pleaded that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation, which is one of the main ingredients of the ground under cl. (e) of the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 14 of the Act. 2. The landlord was the owner of the premises as the Settlement Commissioner had authorized the sale of the property to the landlord and the managing officer had executed the conveyance deed on behalf of the President of India. 3. The premises were let out for residential purposes as the commercial purpose, if at all there was any, was just incidental to residence. 4. The requirement of the landlord was genuine as he had a wife, three sons and three daughters, all of whom were married and needed accommodation.
Issues: 1. Whether the petition for eviction was maintainable as the landlord had failed to allege and prove that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation? 2. Whether the landlord was the owner of the premises? 3. Whether the premises were let out for residential purposes? 4. Whether the requirement of the landlord was bona fide?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The landlord had impliedly pleaded that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation as the eviction petition was entitled as one under sec. 14 (1) (a) and (e) of the Act, the premises were described as "residential" in para 4 thereof, and in para 18 (a) in the grounds of eviction, it was stated that the premises were required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself and for the other members of his family. 2. The Settlement Commissioner had authorized the sale of the property to the landlord and the managing officer had executed the conveyance deed on behalf of the President of India, which transferred a good and perfect title to the landlord. 3. The commercial purpose, if at all there was any, was just incidental to residence as the tenant had admitted that one of the letting purposes was residence. 4. The requirement of the landlord was genuine as he had a wife, three sons and three daughters, all of whom were married and needed accommodation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
( 2 ) THE first question that has been raised on behalf of the appellant is that the petition for eviction was not maintainable as the respondent-petitioner has failed to allege and prove that he had no other reasonable suitable accommodation available, which is one of the main ingredients of the ground under cl. (e) of the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 14 of the Act. For this proposition, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon Abdul Hamid and another vs. Nur Mohammad. 1976 R. C. J. 738. According to said cl. (e), three conditions are necessary for obtaining eviction, (i) that the landlord is the owner of the premises in question, (ii) that his requirement of the same for occupation as residence is bonafide, and (iii) that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. All the three ingredients must be alleged and proved. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, pointed out that the eviction petition has been entitled as one under sec. 14 (1) (a) and (e) of the Act. In para 4 thereof, the premises have been described as "residential", and in para 18 (a) in the grounds of eviction, it has been stated that the premises which are residential and were let out to the respondent only for residence are required bonafide by the petitioner- landlord for occupation as a residence for himself and for the other members of his family including his sons who are members of the joint Hindu family with him. He has no doubt omitted to say that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation, but that is implied under cl. (e) aforesaid, under which the petition has been made. This objection was not raised before the Addl. Rent Controller or the Tribunal. Otherwise, the petitioner would have amended his petition and rectified the defect. The respondent has also moved here on February 9, 1978, an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. , for amendment of the petition. In Rattan Lal vs. Vardesh Chander and others, 1976 R. C. R. 355, the Supreme Court observed that the Act contemplates no elaborate pleadings but filling out of particulars in a proforma which takes the place of a plaint. No specific averment of forfeiture and consequent determination of the lease was made in that petition. The Supreme Court held that having regard to the comparative informality of these proceedings and the quasi-judicial nature of the whole process, such an omission cannot be exaggerated into a lethal infirmity. In Dr. Hans Raj Dawar and another vs. Shyam Kishore, 1977 (2) R. L R. 253, it was observed that in view of Rattan Lal s Case (supra), the weight of the authority of Abdul Hamid (supra) had been shaken. This court in Smt. Sahabzadi etc. vs. Kaha Ram 1968 (2) D. H. C. Notes 169, C. R. 363-D of 1961, decided on May 27, i9b8, by 1. D. Dua, C,j. , has held that pleadings had to be construed in a practical and rational way and a matter of form should not be permitted to defeat the cause of justice where the substance clearly brought out the essential facts affecting the rights of the parties. This is all the more so where the parties have not been prejudiced by such a construction of the pleadings. In Gurdial Nagdev v. Smt. Debi Bai 1979 (1) R. C. R. 119, I had to deal with a similar problem. In that case also, the landlady had failed to aver that she h
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
