The requirements of proviso (e) to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for eviction of a tenant by a landlord for bona fide requirement of the premises for own residence.

V. S. Deshpande, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a tenant s appeal against the concurrent orders of the Controller and the Rent Tribunal ordering his eviction from the premises on the ground that they are required by the respondent-landlord bona fide for her own residence and that she has no other reasonable suitable residential accommodation within the meaning of proviso (e) to sub-secticn (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called "the Act" ).

( 2 ) THE facts are not really in dispute. The respondent-landlord is a deserted wife and a midwife by profession. She acquired the premises in 1962 when she was occupying rented accommodation paying rent of Rs. 35. 00 per month. She nevertheless let out the premises to the appellant in 1963 on a monthly rent of Rs. 60. 00 The relations between the parties later became strained. The appellant applied to the Rent Controller for fixation of standard rent and the respondent filed a petition before the Controller for the eviction of the appellant on the ground that the respondent wanted the premises bona fide for her own residence. The standard rent has, in the meanwhile, been fixed at Rs. 35. 00 per month, that is at the same figure at which the landlord has to pay for the rented accommodation in which she is living. The sole question for decision, therefore, is whether the respondent-landlord has satisfied the requirements of proviso (e) to sub-section (l)of Section 14 of the Act. I shall deal with each of these requirements one by one.

( 3 ) THE premises were admittedly let by the respondent-landlord to the appellant-tenant for residential purposes and it is not disputed before me that the respondent-landlord is the owner of the premises.

( 4 ) THE first aspect of the question in dispute is whether the premises are "required" by the landlord for occupation as a residence for herself. The word "required" means that the premises are needed by the landlord. That is to say, the landlord, in fact, is in need of the premises for her residence and that her desire for the premises is not merely fanciful or unjustified by some other reason. The need of the landlord is the sole justification of the requirement of the premises by her. This need, in my view, is to be judged as an objective fact by the Rent Control authorities and, if necessary, by this Court. The need is based on a hard reality. It is not a question of sentiment or desire not based on reality. Nor is it a question of opinion whether the opinion is of the landlord or of the Rent Control authorities or of this Court. On the contrary, the need is to be assessed on consideration of the facts of each case and according to the standard of a reasonable person. The standard of the need would, of course, vary according to the circumstances of each case and of the special particulars of the need of the landlord in a particular case. The respondent is already without the protection of her husband. She is in need of a decent residence suitable for her status in life which will give her the protection needed by a single woman as to her residence. The desire to live in one s own house and to abandon the rented accommodation is a legitimate aspiration which has to be given effect to by the Rent Control authorities and by this Court unless there are reasons to show that this desire is unjustified in any particular case.

( 5 ) THE only reason urged against this aspect of the claim of the respondent-landlord is that when she acquired the premises in 1962 she did not occupy them herself, but leased them to the appellant-tenant. Ordinarily, a landlord, who prefers to stay in a rented accommodation and lets out her own house to a tenant, 1) would be presumed to be satisfied with the rented accommodation. If she had not been so satisfied, she would not have rented house to a tenant. If she changes her mind later and wishes to evict the tenant from her own house, ordinarily she would have to show that circumstances have changed in the mea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document