Back
1975 Supreme(Del) 19
High Court Of Delhi
P.S.DEVGUN - Appellant
Versus
P.WALIA - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 267 of 1973
Decided On : 02/12/1975
AMARJIT SINGH, C.B.Thanai, K.B.Soni, T.N.Sethi
The landlord must establish to the satisfaction of the Controller that he bona fide needs the premises in dispute for his residence and that the accommodation already available with him is not reasonably suitable.
Headnote:
EVICTION - BONA FIDE PERSONAL NEED - LANDLORD'S CHOICE OF PREMISES - REASONABLENESS OF NEED - PREMATURE PETITION - SECTION 14(1)(E), DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958.
Fact of the Case:
Landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal need under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The landlord claimed that he needed the premises for his residence and that the accommodation available with him was not reasonably suitable. The tenant contested the petition, alleging that it was mala fide and that the landlord had let out the ground floor of the property on a higher rent during the pendency of the eviction petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the eviction petition, holding that the landlord had failed to establish his case to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the landlord had not occupied the ground floor of the property when it had fallen vacant, and that he had let it out on a higher rent. The Tribunal also found that the landlord's need for the premises was not immediate and that the petition was premature.
Issues: 1. Whether the landlord had established that he bona fide needed the premises in dispute for his residence? 2. Whether the accommodation already available with the landlord was reasonably suitable? 3. Whether the petition for eviction was premature?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The landlord must establish to the satisfaction of the Controller that he requires the residential premises bona fide for occupation as a residence for himself and/or for any members of his family dependent on him, and that there is no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation available with him. 2. The landlord's choice and desire has an important part to play, but if some accommodation has already fallen vacant and the landlord fails to occupy it, he cannot be allowed to plead that it was his choice and he did not like the accommodation. 3. The landlord is entitled to be more comfortable by occupying his own house and in deciding his need, the social customs, conventions, and habits, usage, and practices of the society cannot be completely ruled out as irrelevant. 4. A petition for eviction must not be dismissed as premature if the landlord establishes to the satisfaction of the Controller that his need is not immediate, but is likely to arise in the foreseeable future.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the landlord's appeal, holding that the Rent Control Tribunal had not erred in its findings of fact and that there was no legal infirmity in its reasoning or conclusion.
( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been filed under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), by the landlord appellant against the appellate order of Mr. G. C. Jain, Rent Control Tribunal, dated 28th July, 1973, by which he had allowed the appeal and reversed the order of Mr. Jaspal Singh, Controller, da,ted 1st November, 1972, finally dismissing the eviction petition, which had been filed by the appellant against the tenant respondent.
( 2 ) THE property in depute consists of first floor of house No. R-120. Greater Kailash, which had been let out to the respondent tenant on 22nd October, 1967 for a period of two years on a rent of Rs. 320 per month. The appellant landlord came to Delhi for study leave for the period from 15th January, 1969. On 14th July, 1970, which is about 18 months after his arrival in Delhi, the landlord served a notice on the respondent requiring him to vacate the premises on 31st August, 1970. Not getting any response, the appellant landlord filed the petition for eviction on 6th October, 1970 on the ground of bona fide personal need for residence being the ground specified in cla,use (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The allegation made-in support of his claim was that he was an Army Officer, who was likely to be transferred from place to place and so he needed the premises in dispute for residence of himself and members of his family, which consisted of his wife, a minor son and a minor daughter, besides his mother. The respondent tenant contested the petition and urged that the same had been filed mala fide on account of the dispute, which arose in April. 1970 out of the demand of the tenant respondent for a servant quarter or proportionate reduction in rent since the old existing servant quarter had been demolished. It was also contended by the tenant that the landlord appellant claimed enhancement of rent on account of further renewal of the lease. The tenant respondent also pointed out that the ground floor of the tenanted property, which had been let out by the appellant earlier on a monthly rent of Rs. 550 had fallen vacant on 31st August, 1970 (which was the date on which the period of notice of the respondent had expired), but the landlord appellant had let out the said premises again on 1st September, 1970 on a higher rent of Rs. 675 per month. Furthermore, during the pendency of the eviction petition, it has transpired that the same ground floor again fell vacant and on 10th May, 1972 it was again let out to the Chief Administrative Officer, Ministry of Defence, on a rate of rent which the respondent has alleged to be still higher.
( 3 ) THE claim of the appellant landlord found favour with the controller and he passed an order for eviction. On appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal came to the contrary conclusion and found that the landlord had failed to establish that he bona fide needed the premises in dispute for his residence or that the accommodation already available with him was not reasonably suitable. As a result, the eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal by the appellate order under challenge in this appeal.
( 4 ) MR. T. N. Sethi, appearing in support of the appeal, has assailed the findings of the Rent Control Tribunal as being contrary to law and the counsel has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in relying upon the authorities reported as Freddy fernandes v. P. L. Mehra, 1973 Rent Control Reported 53 and David Brown v. Dr. Surjeet Singh, 1971 Rent Control Journal 716.
( 5 ) I have heard the counsel for parties at some length. My learned brother, V. S. Deshpande J. in Freddy Fernandes s case has considered all the then existing authorities of the court on the subject. With greatest respect, I agree with him and hold that there is no doubt that the landlord has to establish to the satisfaction of the Controller, firstly he requires the residential premises bona
