Delhi High Court
Vijay Jain vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 24 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000IAD(DELHI)336, 82(1999)DLT948
ORDER Vijender Jain, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, landladyappellant has filed the present appeal in the year 1981. Appeal has been pending in this Court for the lst 18 years. Look at the plight of the landlady who filed a petition in the year 1971 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'DRC Act') on the ground of bona fide requirement. Respondent is Life Insurance Corporation of India. There is no dispute with regard to purpose of letting. There is also no dispute with regard to the ownership of the appellant. The petition for eviction was dismissed on the ground that the premises were not required by the appellant bonafidely.
2. Mr. V.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the findings of the Tribunal are based on surmises and conjectures. He has also contended that the findings are perverse. The appellant has also brought on record the fact that the appellant has adopted a daughter namely Charu Jain, who is 17 years old now. Copy of the ration card has been filed on record as AW-1 and school certificate of said Charu Jain has also been filed on record.
3. Mr. N.S. Sistani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has contended that the subsequent event should not be taken into consideration. He has contended that if the child was adopted in the year 1982 that fact was not brought to the notice of this Court earlier. He has further contended that two rooms are sufficient for the family of the appellant.
4. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for both the parties. Let me first deal with the case de hors the subsequent event with regard to the requirement of said Charu Jain, who is the adopted daughter of the appellant. It was the admitted case of the parties that the appellant, her husband and the mother of the husband were living in two rooms in the premises in question at the time when the petition for eviction was filed. They did not have any independent drawing-cum-dining room. They did not have a room for guests, friends and relatives . It was one of those cases where even the kitchen was one in which the family of the appellant as well as the family of younger brother of appellant's husband was separately cooking although the relations between the appellant and her sister-in-law were not cordial. The Rent Control Tribunal without taking into consideration the ground realities relating to relationship between the sister-in-law merely on the ground that the ration card was not separate between two brothers discarded the evidence of the appellant. Normally, it is not for the appellate court to substitute its own judgment with regard to the findings arrived at by the lower court. It is also not in the domain of the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence by substituting its own judgment but in this case the evidence of the appellant has been discarded only on the basis of ration card of the brothers being together. It is also observed in the impugned order that although eviction petition was filed in the year 1971 and the strained relationship between the sisters-in-law were alleged to be from 1966. The eviction petition was filed after five years of alleged bad relations, therefore, the evidence was not worthy of credence. The whole approach of the Tribunal was totally cursory. In a joint family, it is possible that the ration card is common as far as the brothers are concerned but to draw inference that as the ration card is common, therefore, there cannot be any quarrel between their wives is too much to presume, finding is totally based on surmises and conjectures.
5. Another part of the impugned order which suffers from patent infirmity is the finding that for the guests, friends and relations, rooms are available on two Barsaties and, therefore, such guests, friends and relations can be accommodated in the Barsaties. A landlord/landlady cannot be compelled to send the guests, friends and relatives to Barsati floor to enable the tenant to live comfortably. The impugned order also suffers from nonconsideration of the requirement of the appellant with regard to the rooms for drawing and dining purposes. Even holding that total rooms available with the appellant were only two, the Tribunal committed grave error in not considering the demand as bona fide the requirement for the purposes of drawing-cum-dining room. Even on this score the order of Rent Control Tribunal can be set aside de hors the requirement of daughter of the appellant, who is now 17 years old. This Court cannot shut its eyes from the mere fact that the impugned order was passed in the year 1980 , 19 years have passed, the adopted daughter of the appellant, whose school certificate and copy of ration card have been filed on record before this Court her requirement for a room has to be taken into consideration. That adds to the requirement of the daughter of the appellant also. In these premises, I accept the appeal, set aside the order of the courts below and pass a decree for eviction against the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. However, the decree shall not be executed before the expiry of a period of six moths.
6. Appeal stands disposed of.