Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2752
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
OM PRASAD SARIN & ANR. – Petitioners
VERSUS
AJIT MEHRA & ORS. – Respondents
RC.REV.No.266/2012 & C.M.Nos.10945/2012, 17918/2013, 8628/2014, 8629/2014
Decided On : 04-12-2014
Mr. R.P. Sharma Advocate.
Mr. Pramod Kumar Singhal, Advocate.
Headnote:
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 25B(8) - Evidence - Photographs - Mark not put - Validity of - Photographs should be taken to have been proved and ought to have been not marked - It is not mandatory in all cases to necessarily file negatives unless and until the photos are shown to be forged photos - Once the photographs are proved which show the said property in a shabby condition, the petitioners/landlords are not expected to re-construct the same by incurring expenses inasmuch as another suitable accommodation i.e suit/tenanted premises are available with them for their residence - Landlords need not spend money over a property required to be re-constructed and re-built, but they can instead seek eviction of the tenant from the tenanted property for the bonafide need of the landlords - Since the photographs should not be marked as Mark-A1 to Mark-A5, the photographs marked as Mark-A1 to Mark-A5 are now taken as exhibited and should be read as Ex.PX-1 to Ex.PX-5.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 25B(8) - Eviction - Bonafide requirement - Denial - Revision - ARC has dismissed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed by the landlords - Land lady was died during the pendency of the trial - Legal heirs have been brought on record - Landlords filed the photographs which have been marked as Mark-A1 to Mark-A5 shows property is in a shabby condition - Tenanted property is lying vacant since long and the same is not being used by the respondents/tenants - It has become a dustbin for people to throw waste and garbage - Tenants have not filed any document whatsoever before the ARC below to show that the premises are continued to be used by them - There is no reason to disbelieve the emphatic stand of the landlords with respect to the deplorable condition of the tenanted premises - Petition is allowed - Impugned judgment of the ARC is set aside - Bonafide necessity eviction petition will stand decreed with respect to the tenanted property comprising of five rooms, one drawing room, two kitchens on the ground floor and one tin shed on the first floor in the property bearing no. 4538, Daiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi-6, and especially as shown in the site plan w hich is proved and ex hibited as Ex.PW-1/14 - The respondents/tenants will be entitled to the statutory period of six months to vacate the suit/tenanted premises - Parties are left to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 09.12.2011 by which the ARC has dismissed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed by the petitioners/landlords with respect to the suit/tenanted premises comprising of five rooms, one drawing room, two kitchens on the ground floor and one tin shed on the first floor of property bearing no.4538, Daiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi-6 as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed along with the eviction petition. The eviction petition has been dismissed after evidence was led by both the parties.
2. The original eviction petition was filed by the landlady Smt.Munni Devi Sarin widow of late Sh.Amba Prasad Sarin for her own requirement as also the requirement of her two sons, one of whom was unmarried. The married son Sh.Rattan Prasad Sarin was having besides himself his wife, one daughter and two sons. When the eviction petition was filed in the year 1991, the two sons of Sh. Rattan Prasad Sarin were 10 years and 9 years of age, and therefore today these two sons would be 33 years and 32 years respectively. I am informed by the counsel for the petitioners that these two sons of Sh.Rattan Prasad Sarin are now in fact married.
3(i) Besides the need for the landlady, her unmarried son Sh.Om Prasad Sarin and married son Sh.Rattan Prasad Sarin and his family, need was also projected for the son Sh.Raghubir Prashad Sarin, who was residing in Mathura and who has retired from a Gazetted post of a District Extension Executor, Family Planning Department in the State of U.P and wanted to shift to Delhi. Need was also projected for another son Sh.Ram Parshad Sarin, who was posted in Agra and was to retire in February 1993, and who also wanted to come to Delhi.
(ii) The landlady also had two another sons Dr.J.P.Sarin and Sh.K.P.Sarin who lived away from Delhi and frequently visited the landlady, and therefore two other rooms/guest rooms were also required for these two sons and their families.
(iii) The landlady was about 85 years of age when the eviction petition was filed and she pleaded that she required the tenanted premises for her sons to stay with her and for looking after her also.
(iv) During the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the landlady expired and she was substituted by her sons and the daughter. The eviction proceedings however continued because the projected need in the eviction petition was not only for the landlady but also for her family members including the unmarried son Sh.Om Prasad Sarin and the married son Sh.Rattan Prasad Sarin, the need for two other sons Sh.Raghubir Prashad Sarin and Sh.Ram Parshad Sarin who wanted to come and settle in Delhi from Mathura and Agra and the need of guest rooms for other two sons who were living away from Delhi.
4. The respondents, who are the legal heirs of the original tenant Sh.Shiv Narain Mehra contested the eviction petition by denying the ownership of the landlady Smt.Munni Devi Sarin. It was also stated by the respondents/tenants that the two sons of the landlady posted at Mathura and Agra did not want to come and settle in Delhi. The landlady was also stated to have sufficient alternative accommodation in a property bearing no.4555, Kucha Bibi Gohar, Charkewalan, Delhi-6, and which as per the respondents/tenants comprised of five rooms. The landlady was also stated to have two rooms and a kitchen on the first floor of the property bearing no. 4554, Kucha Bibi Gohar, Charkewalan, Delhi-6, and to which the landlady stated that her son-in-law was a tenant in the same and he could not be evicted on account of the close and sensitive relations.
5(i) After the pleadings were complete, parties led evidence. On behalf of the landlady Smt.Munni Devi Sarin, depositions were given by PW-1 Sh.Om Prasad Sarin, PW-2 Sh.Ram Prasad Sarin (who di
