Delhi District Court
Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh vs Sh. Hari Singh on 8 April, 2015
In the Court of Sh. Sunil Kumar : Additional Rent Controller02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
E. No. 108/14/10
Unique ID No. 02401C0238932010
In the matter of:
Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh,
S/o. Late Sh. Ram Narain,
R/o. 4216, Third Floor,Gali Ahiran,
Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi110 006. .................... Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Hari Singh,
S/o. Late Sh. Shyam Lal,
R/o. 4438, Main Road,
Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. .................... Respondent
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 14 (1) (e) READ WITH SECTION
25B OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
Date of Institution : 03.06.2010
Date of Arguments: 25.08.2014, 05.09.2014 and 25.02.2015.
Date of Judgment : 08.04.2015
JUDGMENT:
This is an application under clause (e) of proviso to sub section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act 59 of E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 1 of 22 1958) by the petitioner Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh against the respondent Sh. Hari Singh for recovery of possession of premises i.e. House No. 4438, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi as shown in colour red in the site plan.
2. It is stated in the application that the premises in question House No. 4438, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi was let out to Late Sh. Shyam Lal, the father of the respondent for residential purposes at Rs. 61/ p.m. excluding electricity and water charges; that the portion consists of two rooms, one kitchen at the First Floor in House No. 4438, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi; that the petitioner is the owner / landlord of the premises in question i.e. the premises under the tenancy of the respondent which was let out by the grandfather of the petitioner to the father of the respondent i.e. late Sh. Shyam Lal for residential purpose and are being exclusively used by the respondent after the death of his father for residential purposes only; that the premises under the tenancy of the respondent are bonafidely required by the petitioner for occupation as residence for himself and members of his family dependent upon him for residence; that neither the petitioner nor any member of the family of the petitioner has got any other reasonable suitable residential premises available with them and as such the petitioner needs he premises bonafide under the tenancy of respondent for residence for himself and the members in the family dependent upon him for residence; that the family of the petitioner consists of himself aged 75 years, his wife aged 70 years, one E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 2 of 22 married son Sh. Jaideep aged 45 years, son's wife aged 40 years and two grandsons of the petitioner who are school going aged 14 and 13 years respectively, the petitioner has two married daughters, who occasionally visit, come and stay with the petitioner with their husbands and children and the petitioner and his wife are suffering from age old diseases, the petitioner is suffering from Ashtma/breathing problem and his wife is a heart patient; that the petitioner had filed in 1988 an eviction petition u/s. 14(1)(e) of DRC Act against another tenant i.e. Smt. Revti Devi, who was a tenant of one room situated adjacent to the suit premises in House No. 4438, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi and the same was decreed for the bonafide requirement of the petitioner and his family members by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. V.K. Bansal, ARC, Delhi by order/judgment dated 31.01.2001; that the petitioner got the possession of the aforesaid one room on 23.08.2001 and the same is in occupation of the petitioner since then; that the accommodation of one room vacated by Smt. Revti Devi is insufficient for the residence of the petitioner and his family members dependent upon him for residence; that the petitioner is presently residing in a tenanted accommodation situated at Third Floor of premises no. 4216, Gali Ahiran Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 4000/ and the tenanted accommodation consists of one hall, one small room, kitchen, bath and latrine; that Smt. Savitri Ahlawat is the owner of premises no. 4216, Gali Ahiran Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi who is also pressurizing the petitioner to E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 3 of 22 vacate the same as promised by the petitioner to her; that the petitioner has also taken on rent another premises / flat no. 53, Krishi Apartments, Plot no.4 sector13, Rohini, Delhi 85 for the residence of his married son, daughterinlaw and two grandchildren aged 14 and 13 years who are dependent upon the petitioner for residence; that Uma Devi is the owner of the said premises / flat at Rohini, Delhi; that the petitioner is an old man of 75 years and his wife is of 70 years and both of them are suffering from old aged diseases and other diseases stated herein and face great inconvenience, hardship and pain in climbing up and down to / from Third Floor; that the petitioner's son, his wife and his children are residing away from the petitioner and his wife in this old age and there is no one to even look after the petitioner and his wife; that the petitioner and his family members want to reside together at one place but cannot do so due to lack of sufficient residential accommodation; that the present accommodation shown in green colour in the site plan attached which is in possession of the petitioner is insufficient for the residence of the petitioner and his family members dependent upon him for residence; that the petitioner requires the suit premises which is adjacent to the portion shown in green colour in the site plan attached, bonafide for residence of the petitioner and his family members dependent upon him for residence and there is no other suitable alternative residential accommodation for the aforesaid bonafide requirement of resident of the petitioner for himself and his family E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 4 of 22 members dependent upon him for residence; that the premises in question was let out to late Sh. Shyam Lal, the father of the respondent by the grandfather of the petitioner long back and there is no written agreement of letting; that after the death of Sh. Shyam Lal, the petitioner, i.e. the owner / landlord in 1988 filed a suit for possession against the respondent on the ground that the possession of the respondent was that of a unauthorized occupant as according to the petitioner the tenancy of late Sh. Shyam Laal was terminated during lifetime; that the suit was contested by the respondent and the trial court held that the tenancy was not terminated so the suit was dismissed, however, the trial court upheld the contentions of the petitioner that he is the owner of the premises and an appeal was filed against the said order of dismissal, both the courts held the petitioner is the owner / landlord, whereas the respondent is that tenant, having succeeded to right of tenancy from his father Shyam Lal; that there was an assertion on the part of the respondent in the suit as mentioned above that besides the respondent, there are other legal heirs of late Sh. Shyam Lal and that they have also inherited the rights of tenancy; that the petitioner has not made them party because none of them resided in the tenanted premises with late Sh. Shyam Lal at the time of his death and none of them have resided in the tenanted premises after his death; that even their residential addresses are not known to the petitioner and none of them have ever claimed to be tenant of the tenanted premises since the death of the aforesaid Sh. Shyam Lal, E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 5 of 22 who died on 21.12.1984 and none of them ever came forward to claim tenancy during the pendency of the above case as aforesaid between the petitioner and the respondent; that the petitioner does not know their residential addresses and some of them are permanently residing abroad even before the death of Shyam Lal, therefore, the petitioner had not made them the party; that the petitioner in all earnestness accepted the respondent as tenant in the tenanted premises; that there is another room adjacent to the tenanted premises in question as shown in site plan which is in possession of the petitioner as shown in green colour in the site plan and the same is totally insufficient for the residence of the petitioner and his family members dependent upon him for residence; that the same room cannot be used unless and until the petitioner gets the tenanted premises in question so that the whole of the accommodation can be used for residence of the petitioner and his members of the family dependent upon him for residence; that the petitioner bonafidely require the premises as the premises in which the petitioner and his wife presently reside is situated on the third floor while the tenanted premises is situated on the first floor; that the premises is fit for both the petitioner and his wife on account of their old age as it is not physically possible for them to climb up and down on the third floor and infact on one occasion wife of petitioner slipped during going upstairs to reach third floor and sustained injuries; that the ground floor of premises no. 4432 to 4437, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi06 are E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 6 of 22 shops and they are in occupation of old tenants for commercial purposes; that the abovesaid shops are exclusively used for commercial purposes by the tenants; that the petitioner is also the owner of one small kothari at ground floor in premises no. 4441 (part), situated at Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi and the same is commercial and is occupied by a tenant; that the petitioner is also owner of property bearing no. 5024, Gali Jaisi Ram, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi06 built on area of about 40 to 50 sq. yds and the same is totally commercial; that the same is occupied by various tenants for commercial purposes; that the same is occupied by various tenants for commercial purposes. It is therefore prayed by the petitioner that the Hon'ble Court may pass an eviction order against the respondent to vacate the premises in question i.e. House No. 4438, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi.
3. Having obtained leave to contest the application for eviction, a written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent wherein preliminary objections are taken to the effect that the petitioner has suppressed the true and material facts from this Hon'ble Court as such the present petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the suit property and he does not require the premises in question for his bonafide need as he has got the sufficient accommodation available with him in the same locality. It is further submitted that the present petition is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties as the legal heirs of late Sh. Shyam Lal have not impleaded as necessary E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 7 of 22 party in the present petition. It is not denied that the premises is question is consisting of two rooms, one kitchen, open space on the first floor of the property no. 4438, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi110 006. It is denied that there is common latrine at the second floor of the premises. The latrine is being used exclusively by the respondent and his family members. It is denied that the suit premises was let out to late Sh. Shyam Lal by the grandfather of the petitioner long back as alleged. It is further submitted that the premises was owned by one Sh. Mohd. who passed away long back and he was the landlord of the suit premises. It is denied that the petitioner is the owner / landlord of the suit premises or the same was let out by the grandfather of the petitioner to the father of the respondent for residential purposes or the said premises is required bonafide by the petitioner for occupation as residence for himself as well as members of his family dependent upon him. It is denied that neither the petitioner nor any member of his family has got any other reasonable suitable accommodation for their residence is available with them or the premises is required by them as alleged. It is denied that two married daughters of the petitioner occasionally visited or stayed with him alongwith their family. It is further denied that the petitioner and his wife are suffering from old age diseases or suffering from Ashtma / breathing problem or his wife is a heart patient. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed an eviction petition u/s. 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act against Smt. Revti Devi and a decree judgment has E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 8 of 22 accordingly been passed by Ld. ARC, Delhi vide its order dated 31.01.2001. It is denied that the petitioner got possession of the said room on 23.08.2001 and the same is in his occupation and possession. It is further denied that the accommodation of one room vacated by Smt. Revti Devi is insufficient for the residence of the petitioner and his family members dependent upon him for residence. It is denied that the family of the petitioner increased or they used to stay with him including his daughters. It is further denied that the petitioner is presently residing in a tenanted accommodation situated at the third floor of the premises no. 4216, Gali Ahiran Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 4000/ and the tenanted accommodation consists of one hall, one small room, kitchen, bath and latrine. It is further denied that Smt. Savitri Ahlawat is the owner of premises no. 4216, Gali Ahiran Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi or she is also pressurizing the petitioner to vacate the same. It is submitted that the respondent has learnt that the said Savitri Ahlawat is a close relative of the petitioner who concocted false story and infact the petitioner is the owner of the said property and that the petitioner was earlier residing at 4467, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi which is owned by him and is also available to him for residence. It is further denied that petitioner has also taken on rent another premises / flat no. 53, Krishi Apartments, Plot no.4 sector13, Rohini, Delhi for the residence of his married son, daughterinlaw and two grandchildren aged 14 and 13 years who are dependent upon the petitioner for residence E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 9 of 22 or Smt. Uma Devi is the owner of the said flat in Rohini, Delhi. It is stated that the petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is further stated that the petitioner is guilty of suppressionveri and also suggestion falsi. It is further stated that the petitioner owns and possess much more reasonably suitable accommodation than he has disclosed before this Hon'ble Court. It is further stated that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation available on the first floor in the property no. 4438, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi which has admittedly got vacated by the petitioner himself from one Smt. Revti Devi. It is further stated that the accommodation is consisting of two rooms besides open terrace, kitchen, bathroom, latrine, etc. but the petitioner intentionally and deliberately chose to reside somewhere else with the sole objects and motives and with malafide intention to evict the respondent from the tenanted premises. It is further stated that the petitioner has got the sufficient accommodation on the ground floor in the said property which is known as property no. 4441, i.e. a room measuring about 16'6'' x 13'9'' which is more suitable and sufficient to the petitioner and the said accommodation has not been shown by him in the site plan. It is further denied that the petitioner and his wife both are suffering from old age disease or facing inconvenience hardship and pain in climbing up and down from third floor. It is further denied that the petitioner's son, his wife and children are also dependent upon the petitioner for residence or residing away from the petitioner or no one is to E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 10 of 22 look after the petitioner and his wife. It is further stated that the said son of the petitioner is working and carrying on his business in a shop at Rohini, Delhi, therefore, he himself has taken the premises at Rohini for his residential purposes for himself and for his family members in a very posh area, moreover, the children of the son of the petitioner are also studying in public school at Pitampura. It is further stated that the son of the petitioner is independently working and residing and in no way dependent on the petitioner for residence or otherwise and the petitioner has deliberately not disclosed the details regarding the profession and occupation of his son. It is further stated that the petitioner is residing at Pahari Dhiraj, his son has chosen and opted to reside in Rohini which is far away from Pahari Dhiraj and if the petitioner and his son had any intention to reside together the son of the petitioner could have taken a premises on rent in Pahari Dhiraj itself rather than in some far away place in Rohini. It is further stated that the paucity of accommodation is selfcreated by the petitioner. It is further stated that the relations between the petitioner and his sons are not cordial and he is residing separately from his father since long time. It is further denied that the premises in question was let out to late Sh. Shyam Lal, the father of the respondent by the grandfather of the petitioner long back and there is no written agreement of letting. It is denied that the petitioner filed a suit for possession against the respondent in respect of suit property and the same was contested by the respondent. It is further stated that Shyam E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 11 of 22 Lal died long back and his legal heirs have not been impleaded as necessary party in said suit as they have inherited the said property as per law. It is further stated that admittedly the tenancy of the respondent had not been terminated legally as it has been so held in the civil suit, therefore, the said civil court has no jurisdiction to try or entertain the said suit against the respondent. It is further stated that the findings and the judgment so passed by the said civil court is without jurisdiction and is not enforceable in the eyes of law and that in the present suit the legal heirs of late Sh. Shyam Lal have not been impleaded as necessary party as such the present petition is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. It is further stated that the petitioner has got another room adjacent to the tenanted premises in question, however it is denied that the said room is insufficient for him. It is further stated that the said accommodation is not only a room but it consists of one big room, one small room, one store with open space, bath and latrine which is sufficient for the petitioner to reside therein but the petitioner did not occupy the same since the date of its vacation till date. It is further denied that the petitioner require bonafide, the tenanted premises as the premises in which the petitioner and his wife are presently residing is situated on the third floor or the same is fir for both the petitioner and his wife. It is further denied that at one occasion wife of petitioner even slipped during going upstairs to reach third floor and sustained injuries. It is further denied that the ground floor of the premises no. 4432 to 4437, E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 12 of 22 Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi6 are shops or these are in occupation of old tenants for commercial purposes. It is further stated that the petitioner has not disclosed or stated the names of the tenants as to who are in occupation and possession of the said alleged shops or as to when the same were let out to the tenants. It is further stated that the petitioner is the owner of the property no. 4441, situated in the said property which is not a kothari but is consisting of two rooms, on the ground floor and the same is spacious as such the petitioner failed to disclose the correct facts and has not come to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands. It is further stated that the property bearing no. 5024, Gali Jaisi Ram, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi is not built on an area of about 40 to 50 sq. yds. nor the same is totally a commercial one. It is further stated that the averments made in the petition are absolutely false, baseless and fabricated. It is further stated that the said property is measuring about more than 70 sq. yds. and the same has been constructed by the petitioner about 56 years ago and the same is a four storeyed building, i.e. consisting of ground floor, first floor, second floor, third floor and fourth floor. It is further stated that each floor, except the ground floor is consisting of three rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine etc. and it is revealed that two floors i.e. first floor and second floor in the said property are still lying vacant and the same is under the occupation and possession of the petitioner but the petitioner failed to disclose the same with his malfide intention and with the sole motive to evict the respondent from the said E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 13 of 22 premises. It is further stated that the photographs clearly show that the said property has been built upto the fourth floor and the same are already on record besides its site plan which have been filed alongwith the application for seeking leave to defend and contest the petition. It is further stated that the petitioner has also relied upon the award dated 30.01.1995 which has been filed by him alongwith the petition, though not admitted the same the respondent has stated that it is mentioned that the property bearing no. 4473/XIV, Gali Jatan, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi6 shall be owned jointly by all the abovesaid parties, the heirs of late Sh. Ram Narain, however, Smt. Badamo Deiv wife of Late Sh. Ram Narian shall have life interests in the said property towards her maintenance. It is further stated that the petitioner has concealed the material fact that the said Smt. Badamo Devi had died long back and the said property bearing no. 4473/XIV, Gali Jatan, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi6 which is measuring about 300 sq. yds. and consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor. It is further stated that the said property has been inherited and is owned by the petitioner and he is collecting the rent from the tenants of the ground floor and part of the first floor and the second floor of the said property are still lying vacant and these facts have been concealed by the petitioner. It is further stated that the decree passed on the basis of the said award is without jurisdiction, nullity and invalid. It is further stated that the purported award is not even a registered document and is inadmissible in evidence. It is further stated that E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 14 of 22 the entire alleged transaction i.e. award, partition and decree are sham, manipulated and selfserving document and do not confirm any title in favour of the petitioner. It is therefore prayed that the eviction petition is devoid of merits hence may kindly be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. In support of his case the applicant got examined himself as PW1 and during his examination in chief tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/1 alongwith documents as Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/R. The applicant was cross examined by counsel for the respondent. The applicant also got examined Sh. Jaideep as PW2 who was also crossexamined by the counsel for the respondent. Thereafter, the Petitioner's Evidence was closed.
5. In support of his case, the respondent got examined himself as RW1 and during his examination in chief tendered his affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.RW1/1, Ex.RW1/3(colly.) and Ex.RW1/4. The witness was crossexamined on behalf of the applicant. The respondent also examined Sh. Mahinder Singh as RW2 who exhibited Ex.RW2/1 to Ex.RW2/8. The witness was crossexamined on behalf of the applicant. Thereafter evidence on behalf of the respondent was closed.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record.
7. Having drawn my attention on testimony of the applicant and its witnesses and documents tendered by them, it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the owner and landlord of the premises E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 15 of 22 which are required bona fide by him for his necessity. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no other reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicant that an eviction order be passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondent.
Per contra, having drawn my attention on contents of the application for eviction, written statement, replication, and the testimony of PWs and RWs and the law laid down in O.P. Gupta Vs. R.K. Sharma 90 (2001) DLT 276, Sargotha Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Bharat Bhushan Chawla & Others 90 (2001) DLT 280, Puran Chand Vs. Yashpal 113 (2004) DLT 421, Charan Dass Duggal Vs. Bharmanand 21 (1982) DLT 378 and Prahlad Rai Mittal Vs. Rita Devi 2013 (1) RLR 271 , it is submitted by counsel for the respondent that the application for eviction filed by the applicant is frivolous and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondent that the present application has not been made for bona fide reason and the premises are not required by the applicant. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondent that the application is motivated and has been made only to get vacated the premises. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondent that the application for eviction be dismissed.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 16 of 22
9. The present application has been made under clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958, which after passing of judgment in Satyawati Sharma's case (supra) is to be read as follows:
14.(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: * * * * * *
(e) that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation;
10. In the light of the provisions of clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 and the pleadings of the parties following points fall for the determination of this court, namely:
(i) Whether the applicant is the owner of the premises?
(ii) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
(iii) Whether the premises are required bona fide by the applicant for himself ?
(iv) Whether the applicant has no other reasonably suitable accommodation?
11. In so far as first point and second point for determination are concerned, it is observed that the same are admitted by the respondent in his E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 17 of 22 crossexamination in the present case filed by the petitioner. Further, the respondent failed to brought on record any evidence which could suggest that someone else is the owner and the landlord of the suit premises under whom his deceased grandfather or father or him was a tenant. Therefore, in the light of the pleadings of the parties and other material placed before this court, in so far as clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 is concerned, the applicant is the owner of the premises and it is also found that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and the respondent.
12. The next question which falls for the determination is:
whether the premises are required bona fide by the applicant for himself?
13. In Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand, AIR 1999 SC 2507 having discussed the provisions of s clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
13. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bona fide to mean 'in good faith : genuine'. The word 'genuine' means 'natural : not spurious : real : pure : sincere'. In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley define bona fide to mean 'good faith, without fraud or deceit'. Thus the term bona fide or genuinely refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by 'requires' is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase 'required bona fide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the Rent Control Legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 18 of 22 occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of landlord and its bona fides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court. The Judge of facts should place himself in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bona fide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the Court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the Court is satisfied of the bona fides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the Court. The Court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the Court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must be guarded against.
14. In the present case to judge whether the premises are required bona fide by the applicant the statements made by him in his application for eviction and replication and his testimony as PW1 are required to be noticed.
15. During his examination as PW1 it has been deposed by the applicant that the demised premises is required by him for the purpose of E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 19 of 22 occupation as residence for himself and members of his family dependent upon him for residence and not having other reasonable suitable residential accommodation / property in Delhi except the suit property. As such, it is stated by the petitioner that to meet out the bonafide needs, the petitioner is not having sufficient / reasonable accommodation for his residential requirement as his family consist of himself, his wife, one married son and daughterinlaw and two grandchildren who are school going. Further, it is stated that the applicant has two married daughters who occasionally visits, come and stay with the applicant with their husband and children. He further stated that he is presently residing in tenanted accommodation paying a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/ and the owner of the tenanted premises shall pressurized him to vacate the same. He further stated that he had taken on rent another flat for the residence of his married son and his family. Therefore, the deponent and his family members want to reside together at one place but cannot do due to lack of sufficient residential accommodation.
During his crossexamination, nothing adverse has been deposed by the PW1 against himself which could suggest that he did not require the premises for his bonafide requirement.
16. The plea of the respondent that the petitioner is having many other properties in his possession for meeting out his requirement. It is observed in view of the admission of respondent in his crossexamination E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 20 of 22 that the property no. 4432 to 4437 are comprised of shop meaning thereby used exclusively for commercial purposes. Further, as per the record, the petitioner has no concern with the property no. 4467 which is stated to be residential one and joint family property. The other admitted properties of the petitioner are found to be either commercial or are not fit for human habitation as per the requirement of the petitioner. Therefore, the abovesaid plea of the respondent is found to be of no use in view of the requirement of the petitioner of the tenanted premises for the purpose of residence for himself and his family members as he and his son are living in a rented accommodation.
17. From a reading of the application for eviction, replication and the testimony of the applicant, it is clear that as per the version of the applicant, he bonafidely require the tenanted premises. The petitioner has already pointed out in the application for eviction that he is an old aged person and having family who is dependent upon him for residence purpose as the petitioner and his family members are living in the tenanted premises. Therefore, the requirement of bonafide of the applicant stands established alongwith the factum that he has no other alternative accommodation with him in Delhi.
18. In the light of the material on record, especially the pleadings of the applicant and his testimony, if one attempts to peep into the mind of the applicant to ascertain his bona fide requirement then it is found that the E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 21 of 22 premises is bonafidely required by the applicant for himself and his family members. Needless to say that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and there is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property. In the case in hand, the fact that the petitioner has no other reasonable, suitable accommodation available for meeting his use or for the use of his family member dependent upon him. found to be established, therefore, his need is bonafide and he has full choice to take the benefit of his property as per his convenience.
19. In view of above discussion and the mandate of subsection (4) of section 25B of Act 59 of 1958, the present application for eviction is allowed. The applicant is found entitled to recover the possession of the premises House No. 4438, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi as shown in colour red in the site plan attached with the application. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. File be consigned to Records.
20. In view of the provisions of subsection (7) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 this order for recovery of possession of premises shall not be executed before the expiration of a period of six months from this date.
Announced in the open court (Sunil Kumar)
th
on this 08 day of April, 2015 Additional Rent Controller
08.04.2015
E. No. 108/14/10 Page No. 22 of 22