Back
High Court Of Delhi
B.K.KHANNA - Appellant
Versus
M.R.BATRA - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 15D of 1962
Decided On : 03/02/1966
LANDLORD AND TENANT - RENT CONTROL - EJECTMENT - GROUNDS - REQUIREMENT OF PREMISES FOR PERSONAL USE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 14 (1) (E) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - WHETHER LANDLORD CAN EVICT TENANT ON GROUND OF PERSONAL REQUIREMENT IF HE HAS OTHER ACCOMMODATION IN HIS POSSESSION WHICH IS NOT REASONABLY SUITABLE FOR HIS RESIDENCE - MEANING OF "REQUIRED BONA FIDE" IN SECTION 14 (1) (E) - WHETHER LANDLORD CAN USE ACCOMMODATION IN HIS POSSESSION FOR PROFESSIONAL OR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND STILL CLAIM EVICTION ON GROUND OF PERSONAL REQUIREMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord, an advocate, filed an application for ejectment of the tenant from three rooms on the first floor of a house, on the ground that he required the premises for his own residence and that the existing accommodation was not reasonably suitable for his residence. The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the landlord was debarred from seeking eviction under section 14 (6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, since he had acquired the premises by transfer within five years of the application, and that the accommodation in his possession was not inadequate.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that: (i) Section 14 (6) of the Act did not apply to the case, as the landlord had become the owner of the premises prior to the transfer by the Government, and the transfer was not intended as a device to enable the landlord to evict the tenant; (ii) The landlord was entitled to evict the tenant under clause (e) of the proviso to section 14 (1) of the Act, as he required the premises bona fide for his own residence, even though he had other accommodation in his possession which was not reasonably suitable for his residence; (iii) The landlord could use the accommodation in his possession for professional or business purposes and still claim eviction on the ground of personal requirement, as long as he genuinely required the premises for his own residence.
Issues: 1. Whether section 14 (6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, barred the landlord from seeking eviction of the tenant, since he had acquired the premises by transfer within five years of the application. 2. Whether the landlord was entitled to evict the tenant under clause (e) of the proviso to section 14 (1) of the Act, even though he had other accommodation in his possession which was not reasonably suitable for his residence. 3. Whether the landlord could use the accommodation in his possession for professional or business purposes and still claim eviction on the ground of personal requirement.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 14 (6) of the Act did not apply to the case, as the landlord had become the owner of the premises prior to the transfer by the Government, and the transfer was not intended as a device to enable the landlord to evict the tenant. 2. The landlord was entitled to evict the tenant under clause (e) of the proviso to section 14 (1) of the Act, as he required the premises bona fide for his own residence, even though he had other accommodation in his possession which was not reasonably suitable for his residence. 3. The landlord could use the accommodation in his possession for professional or business purposes and still claim eviction on the ground of personal requirement, as long as he genuinely required the premises for his own residence.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the orders of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal were set aside. An order was made for the ejectment of the respondent from the premises in dispute.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has arisen out of an application filed by the landlord who is practising as an Advocate of the Supreme Court against the tenant for ejectment on the grounds that he had failed to pay arrears of rent since 1st June, 1959 inspite of service of notice of demand and that the existing accommodation was not reasonably. suitable for his residence and that he required the premises in dispute which consist of three rooms on the first floor of a house at Shanker Road for. the residence of himself and his family. The arrears of rent having been paid by the tenant in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act), the only ground which remained available to the landlord was the second one which has been found against him by the Rent Controller as also the Rent Control Tribunal.
( 2 ) MR. Bhagwat Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant, has given a resume of the facts. which have not been disputed. The appellant, who was a displaced person, applied for allotment of Government accomodation in the year 1952-1953. In April 1953 he deposited a sum of Rs. 16,500. 00 for purchasing the house inquestion. On 14th January 1954 the Government sanctioned the sale in his favour. On. 8th February 1954 the Housing and Rent Officer, Delhi directed the Circle Officer, Patel Nagar, New Dlhi to hand over the possession of the house to the appellant (Exhibit p. 8 ). On 1st August 1958 the appellant let out the premises in dispute comprising three rooms kitchen, bath-room etc. On the first-floor to the respondent at a monthly rental of Rs. 130. 00 The formal deed of conveyance as also the lease deed were executed by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi-in favour of the appellant on 14th April 1960. On 28th July, 1960 the appellant filed an application under section 14 of the Act. It was stated inter alia in this application that the applicant had started practising as an Advocate and he also Wanted to write books since he had been doing so before. The ground-floor was wholly inadequate for his needs for purposes of residence arid office. He had a large family and his wife and one of his sons were residing permanently with him but he had five children and ten grand-children who come to pay visits to him and when any of them was transferred to Delhi he had to live with him and, therefore, the accomodation in his possession was wholly inadequate. The respondent pleaded the bar of section 14 (6) to the maintainability of the application. According to that provision, where a landlord had acquired any premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such premisid shall lie under subsection (1) on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso thereto, unless a period of rive years has elapsed from the date of the acquisition. The Rent Controller upheld the objection of the respondent that since the appellant acquired ownership of the suit-premises by means of the conveyance deed (Exhibit P. 4) dated 14th April 196d he was debarred from seeking eviction under clause (e) of the proviso to section 14 (1 ). The Rent controller was further;. of the opinion that the accommodation in the possession of the appellant could not be be considered to be inadequate because he had two residential rooms available to him on the first-floor and that the only dependent members of his family residing with him were his wife and his son, aged 20, and that he had been using the three rooms on the groundfloor for his residence since 1957.
( 3 ) HE Rent Control Tribunal, after referring to the documents produced by the appellant in the matter of acquisition of the property in dispute, said that there was no evidence to show as to when the sale had been sanctioned in his favour. According to it, the sale must be deemed to have been made in his favour on 14th April 1960 when the lease deed and the sale deed were executed. He agreed with the Rent Controller s view that the app
AI
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
