The bona fide requirement of a landlord for additional accommodation under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Control Act is not negated by the fact that he has let out a portion of his property for commercial purposes.

PRAKASH NARAIN, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) THIS second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is directed against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, which affirmed the order of the Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissing a petition for ejectment brought by the appellant against the respondent on the ground that the appellant bona fide required the premises under the tenancy of the respondent, of which he was the owner, as residence for himself and the members of his family.

( 2 ) THE premises in dispute were let out in the year 1959 on a rent of Rs. 38. 00 per month. These premises comprised of a room of the size of -10 -9" x 9 -9" and a store on the first floor in house bearing municipal number 5574 situated in New Chandrawal, Subji Mandi. Delhi. It was not in dispute that the appellant-landlord was himself also living on the first floor of the same house and the accommodation with him was one room, a store and kitchen on the first floor. a barsati on the second floor and a small room in the meanine floor which he had acquired later on. The appellant s family about which there was no dispute comprises of himself, three grown up sons. two younger daughters; a wife and his mother. On the ground that the accommodation available with him was not sufficient for himself and his family the appellant-landlord sought eviction of the respondenttenant. The defence of the tenant was that the entire house including the ground floor were residential premises and the landlord had been letting out accommodation on the ground floor from time to time on enhanced rent to various tenants which went to show that his claim claim for eviction was not bona fide. and that the eviction petition had been brought only to harass the tenant to pay higher rent.

( 3 ) BOTH the Controller and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the ground floor of this building was residential and the fact of the landlord letting out the ground floor even for commercial purposes showed that his claim for eviction was not bona fide. To arrive at this conclusion the Controller and the Tribunal relied on the sanctioned plan of this building in which it was shown that the ground floor was to be a residential area and the admission of the appellant that he had been letting out different portions of the ground floor in favour of tenants for commercial purposes, even up to as late as February, 1967. Both the Controller and the Tribunal held that they did not find anything in the resolution of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, relied upon by the appellant, passed on 17-9-1957 which went to show that the ground floor of this building had been converted into commercial premises and had ceased to be residential in nature. The appellant-landlord has come up in appeal and has urged that the admitted letting out of the ground floor premises to various parties from time to time could have no relevance to judge the need of the appellant for adjoining premises on the same floor on which he was living and both the Controller and the Tribunal have erred in law in coming to the contrary conclusions.

( 4 ) MR. R. L. Tandon, the learned counsel for the appellant, has urged that a substantial question of law arises for determination in this case inasmuch as the Controller and the Tribunal have not only misconstrued the documents placed on record but have even omitted to read those documents in their entirety and have dismissed the eviction-petition contrary to settled law. In this connection he has invited my attention to the resolution of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which, according to him, has not been read in full by both the Controllers and the Tribunal. There can be no manner of doubt that in. the report proceeding this resolution the words "rooms have been converted into shops" have not been noticed by both the Controller and the Tribunal. Their conclusion, therefore, signifying that the payment of the penalty of Rs. 25. 00 to compound the prosecution for convert

Click Here to Read the rest of this document