Delhi District Court
Sh. Harbans Lal Munjal vs Sh. Ramesh Kumar Khattar on 23 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. D.K.JANGALA : ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER: NORTHWEST:ROHINI: DELHI E. No. 20/10 U/S 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act Sh. Harbans Lal Munjal S/O Late Sh. Vir Bhan, R/O B33, Tagore Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi110033 .............. petitioner Versus Sh. Ramesh Kumar Khattar, S/O Sh. Gobind Ram Khattar, R/O 204A, Block BC ( East), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi110088 ................ Respondent Date of Institution: 11.02.10 Date of final arguments: 18.07.12 Date of Decision: 23.07.12 JUDGEMENT:
1. The petitioner filed the present petition for eviction of the respondent/ tenant U/S 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ( herein after called as DRC Act) . The petitioner filed the present petition regarding the suit premises i.e. one shop in B33, Tagore Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi110033 as shown in Page 1 of 26 yellow colour in the site plan. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent is a tenant in the suit premises. It is stated by the petitioner that he is the owner and landlord of the suit premises and respondent is a tenant in the same. It is stated that the suit premises was let out to the respondent and was being used by the respondent as an auto repairs workshop under the name and style of 'M/S Mateshwari Auto Works'. It is stated that at present the rate of rent is Rs. 330/ per month after increase. It is stated that the family of the petitioner consist of petitioner , his retired wife, ,married son, daughterinlaw, grand daughter and three married daughters. It is stated that the son of the petitioner alongwith his family including his wife and his small baby girl reside on the first floor of the property and they are in exclusive possession of entire first floor. It is stated that the petitioner and his wife resides on the ground floor of the property behind the shop as shown in 'brown' colour in the site plan. It is stated by the petitioner that he and his wife have enjoyed a high status in career as well as in social life.
2. It is stated that the petitioner has served as an ' academician' for over 40 years and has retired as ' Vice Principal' from Govt. school and awarded state level ' Teachers Award'. by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for his exemplary services to the teaching profession. It is stated that the petitioner is also the Editor of the magazine published by Dharmarth Hospital. It is stated that petitioner is highly Page 2 of 26 qualified and has done B.A., M.A., B.Ed and Law . It is stated that petitioner is a senior citizen and is actively involve in various social religious, academic, welfare organizations in various capacities. It is stated that wife of the petitioner is also a senior citizen and she has various qualifications including B.A., and B.Ed. and retired as TGT from Government school. It is stated that son and daughterin law of the petitioner are well placed in their profession.
3. It is stated that the total accommodation available with the petitioner and his wife on the ground floor consists of only two rooms, one kitchen, one bathroom, one toilet, one bathroom cum toilet with one small store. It is stated that the accommodation available to the petitioner on the ground floor for self use is grossly inadequate and insufficient qua his growing needs. It is stated that the petitioner has only one drawing room and one bed room on the ground floor as shown in 'brown' colour . It is stated that the petitioner has to accommodate her daughters whenever they visit and stay with the petitioner in their summer/ winter vacations. It is stated that it is very embarrassing and below the dignity and status of the petitioner that the daughters alongwith their school going sons daughters and even their husbands have to be accommodated in one room i.e. the drawing room. It is stated that the petitioner cannot even provide them beds to sleep and they have to sleep on the floor. It is stated that the existing accommodation on the ground Page 3 of 26 floor which is in occupation of the petitioner is grossly insufficient and inadequate qua his present needs. It is stated that the petitioner needs atleast three additional rooms which could be used as bed rooms for his daughters who visit him together during vacations.
4. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the building No. B33, Tagore Road, Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi110033 by virtue of sale deed dated 19.09.1964. It is stated that the suit shop is lying closed after the said activity of scooters/ auto repairs workshops/ garage was banned/ prohibited in residential area by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 4677/85 titled as M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Others.
5. It is also stated that another shop No.2 as shown in 'mustard' colour was let out to another tenant namely Sh. Vinod Kumar in January 1984. It is stated that the shop No.5 as shown in 'red' colour was let out to Sh. Gurcharan Singh Sethi in May, 1980. It is stated that the shop No.4 as shown in ' green' colour was let out to Sh. Rakesh Kumar on 23.12.1992.
6. It is stated by the petitioner that he requires the shop No.2 as shown in 'mustard colour' to convert the same into bed room for the use and occupation of his visiting daughters and their family for which a separate eviction petition is filed. It is stated that the petitioner requires the shop No.4 as shown in 'green colour' to be converted in a library cum study room. It is stated by the petitioner Page 4 of 26 that shop No.5 as shown in 'red colour' is required by him for the stay of his maid.
7. It is stated that the petitioner require the suit premises for dining room since the existing dining room on the ground floor has a passage across it and hence cannot accommodate both sofa set as well as dining table together. It is stated that the petitioner is in genuine and bonafide need of a pooja room where the petitioner and his wife can do pooja and meditation. It is stated that there is no other reasonable suitable alternate accommodation available with the petitioner.
It is prayed that the eviction order U/S 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act regarding the suit premises may kindly be passed.
8. The notice of the petition under schedule III of DRC Act was served upon the respondent and the respondent filed his application for leave to defend. The leave to defend application filed by the respondent was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 05.06.10. Thereafter the respondent filed his written statement and raised the preliminary objection that the present petition is filed just to harass the answering respondent and the petitioner is not in need of suit shop as the petitioner and his wife are residing at the first floor alongwith his son and daughterinlaw and the entire ground floor is vacant. It is stated that during the pendency of present petition the eviction order are passed against Page 5 of 26 three other tenants and the need of the petitioner, if any is fully eclipsed . The respondent has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner. It is stated that the suit property was let out to the respondent by the wife of the petitioner . On the reply on merit the respondent denied all other submissions of the petitioner and prayed that the eviction petition may kindly be dismissed. It is also stated that out of the property measuring 240 sq.yards which is double story building, the respondent is in possession of only one shop measuring 10 sq. yards and the entire ground floor except the suit shop is still lying vacant. It is stated on the first floor atleast three rooms are still lying vacant. It is prayed that eviction petition may kindly be dismissed.
9. The petitioner filed the replication to the written statement of the respondent whereby reaffirmed and reassert the contents of the petition and denied the submissions of the respondent.
10. The petitioner to prove his case has examined himself as PW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit EX PW 1/A and deposed in terms of the petition. It is deposed by the petitioner that the total accommodation available to him on the ground floor consist of only two rooms , one kitchen, one bathroom, one toilet with one small store. It is stated that he has no separate room to use as library cum study room for which he had to file another eviction petition for the shop No.4 as shown in 'green colour' and the said tenant has Page 6 of 26 compromised the said suit and vacated the suit premises in January 2010. It is stated that the petitioner has reconverted the said shop into library cum study room and same is not being used for the said purpose. It is also stated that the another shop No. 5 as shown in 'red colour' was also vacated by the tenant during pendency of the eviction petition No. 23/10 and the said shop has been converted into one living room for the use and occupation of the maid. It is also stated that the shop No.2 as shown in 'mustard colour' was vacated by the tenant during pendency of the eviction petition No. 122/10 and the same is converted into an additional bed room. It is stated that the petitioner still need atleast two additional bed rooms out of which the petitioner wants to convert the shop of the respondent in one such bed room.
11. During crossexamination the PW1 deposed that he has one store on ground floor at point A in the site plan EX PW 1/2 but again said that the store is located at point B in the site plan EX PW 1/2 and there is a passage at point A. It is stated that in the year 1975 he shifted to first floor and in the year 2008 he again shifted at the ground floor. It is stated that he cannot tell the month and date of shifting. It is stated that after retirement he has started a departmentalcum stationary shop. It is stated that he has two passage in the building, one is from the main gate and other is shown in between the two shops. It is stated that he generally use Page 7 of 26 the passage shown between the shops. It is also stated that on the first floor one bed room and one guest room, one drawing room , one dinning room ,one kitchen, two latrinecumbathrooms, one pooja room and one change room are situated. It is submitted that except the respondent's shops all three shops are vacated. It is denied that he has received a sum of Rs.6,500/ from the respondent as 'Pagri'. It is stated that he has around 2000 books at his home in the library which is shown in EX PW 1/7. It is stated that he is in process of transferring his books to the recently made library cum study room which was originally shop No.4. It is stated that he has shifted in the year 2008 from the first floor to the ground floor and his son live separately. It is voluntarily stated that his married daughters usually come and stay in the vacations as they are also teachers in the government school. It is stated that they were using both ground floor and first floor for accommodation before 2008. It is stated that before 2008 the daughters used to stay at ground floor .
12.It is stated that he has no quarrel with his son and daughterinlaw. It is stated that in the day time they remais at the first floor but at night they used bed rooms on the ground floor. It is stated that he has one maid for him who also used to work for his son. It is admitted that no police verification for maid was carried out. It is stated that the maid was employed by his son and he do not know Page 8 of 26 how much salary was paid to her. It is stated that he do not have any personal vehicle. It is stated that he has been collecting books for the last 40 years and he has not kept the bills of the purchase of these books. It is stated that in the year 2008 when he shifted on the ground floor he was having separate kitchen and he was also having two gas cylinders out of which one gas cylinder was used by his son and other was used by him. It is denied that he is the owner of the property bearing No. B30, First Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi . The PW1 was asked by the counsel for the respondent whether he has shown toilet at point B in EX PW 1/2 and the petitioner replied that it is not useable and it is under the stair case and during specific suggestion it is stated that there are two bath rooms cum toilet and the third one is under the stair case and it is unuseable. It is admitted that no 'store' word has been written in the site plan. It is denied that no maid is residing with him. It is denied that he is residing at the first floor alongwith his son and daughterinlaw. It is denied that except the suit shop entire ground floor is lying vacant.
13. The respondent also filed his evidence by way of affidavit EX RW 1/A and deposed in terms of his written statement. It is stated that the petitioner and his wife are residing at the first floor alongwith his son and daughterinlaw and the entire ground floor except the suit shop is lying vacant and the petitioner has got three shops vacated , Page 9 of 26 therefore, need of the petitioner, if any has been fully eclipsed .
During crossexamination the RW1 admitted that he took the shop on rent on 01.09.1976 and he has received all the rent receipts and he has all rent receipts of 36 years with him. It is admitted that all the rent receipts bears the signatures of petitioner. It is admitted that the daughters of the petitioner generally used to stay at the first floor of the property. The RW1 has admitted the visiting card EX RW 1/PA. It is admitted that he has never entered the house of the petitioner after filing of the case. It is admitted that MCD has challaned him of Rs.2,000/ each three times. The RW1 in his crossexamination has confirmed this shop at point A to F and three rooms at point R1 to R3 on the ground floor in the suit premises in the site plan EX RW 1/1. It is stated that he was doing the work of scooter repairing in the year 1976 when the shop was taken on rent. It is admitted that the running of scooter repairing workshop is prohibited by law in the vicinity/ area of the suit property. It is admitted that he has shifted his business at C35B, New Acharya Kirplani Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi two years ago, in February, 2009. It is admitted that there is no pooja room on the ground floor . It is denied that the room R3 in EX RW 1/1 is not a room and it is a varandah . It is admitted that he has taken all rent receipts of Rs.150/ and upwards from the petitioner. It is admitted that after filing of the petition three shops except the suit shops Page 10 of 26 were got vacated. It is admitted that three shops vacated by him are converted into rooms.
14. I have carefully perused the material on record and have gone through the submissions of Ld. counsel for both the parties. Both the parties also filed their written submissions. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a senior citizen and retired ' Vice Principal' from the Delhi Administration and engaged himself in social activities . It is stated that the petitioner required the suit premises for pooja room and dinning room and also to accommodate and create space for bed rooms for his three married daughters. It is stated that the need of the petitioner is bonafide and the respondent has no right to dictate to the petitioner how and in which manner he should adjust himself without getting the possession of the suit premises. Therefore, eviction order regarding the suit premises may kindly be passed.
15. On the other hand it is submitted by Ld. counsel for the respondent that need of the petitioner is not boanfide. It is stated that after filing of the present eviction petition the petitioner has got possession of three shops and after getting the possession of the same, the need of the petitioner is satisfied. Therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.
16. The relevant provision of Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act is reproduced as under for guidance: Page 11 of 26 " Protection of tenant against eviction (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 let for residential purposes are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon 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 residential accommodation".
1. The necessary ingredients for grant of relief U/S 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act are as under:
(a) Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties regarding suit premises.
(b) Ownership of petitioner qua suit premises.
Page 12 of 26
(c) Bonafide requirement of petitioner.
(d) That the petitioner is having no other reasonable suitable
accommodation.
17. Existence of relation of landlord and tenant between parties regarding the suit premises : It is stated by the petitioner that he is the landlord of the suit premises i.e. one shop in B33, Tagore Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi110033 and respondent is a tenant in the same. The respondent in his written statement has admitted his status as tenant in the suit premises, however the respondent has denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner. It is stated by the respondent that the suit premises was let out by the wife of the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed his evidence by way of affidavit EX PW 1/A and deposed in terms of the eviction petition. The petitioner has proved the photocopy of the rent receipts EX PW 1/3 collectively. The respondent also filed his evidence by way of affidavit EX RW1/A . The respondent in his evidence by way of affidavit has not disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Even during crossexamination the respondent has categorically admitted the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
The respondent has admitted that the suit premises has been Page 13 of 26 let out to him by the petitioner and the respondent also admitted that all the rent receipts were issued by the petitioner in his own name. The respondent has also not disputed the rent receipt executed by the petitioner. In the present case the testimony of the petitioner is supported with the rent receipt EX PW 1/3. The respondent has also admitted the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties regarding the suit premises in his crossexamination. Therefore, on the basis of evidence i.e. rent receipt EX PW 1/3 and from the admission of the respondent , I hold that there exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties regarding the suit premises.
18. Ownership of the petitioner qua the suit premises It is stated by the petitioner that he is the owner of the suit premises. The respondent in his written statement has disputed the ownership of petitioner qua the suit premises.
The petitioner filed his evidence by way of affidavit EX PW 1/A and proved the copy of the sale deed of the suit premises as EX PW 1/1. The respondent in his evidence produced no material to deny the ownership of the petitioner qua the suit premises. In the present case the testimony of the petitioner is supported with sale deed EX PW 1/1 regarding the suit premises to prove the ownership. Moreover, the respondent during his crossexamination has admitted that the suit premises was let out to him by the Page 14 of 26 petitioner. Once the relationship of landlord and tenant and letting out of the suit premises by the petitioner to the respondent is admitted , than the respondent/ tenant is estopped from challenging the ownership of the petitioner qua the suit premises by virtue of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act. The presumption U/S 116 of Indian Evidence Act qua the ownership of the petitioner is raised . Moreover in the present case the testimony of the petitioner is supported with the sale deed EX PW 1/1 and the respondent has produced no evidence to disprove the ownership of the petitioner qua the suit premises. The respondent has even not disclosed the name of any other person as owner of the suit premises. Therefore, this contention of the respondent regarding the ownership of the petitioner qua the suit premises is not tenable in the eyes of law.
In view of the above discussions , I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is able to prove his primafacie ownership qua the suit premises.
19. Bonafide requirement of the petitioner It is stated by the petitioner that his family consist of himself, his retired wife, one married son, daughterinlaw, grand daughter and three married daughters. It is also stated by the petitioner that his son alongwith his wife is residing at the first floor and they are in exclusive possession of the entire first floor. It is stated that the petitioner with Page 15 of 26 his wife resides at the ground floor of the property behind the suit shop. It is stated by the petitioner that he and his wife are having high status in the society. It is stated by the petitioner that he need a dining room since the existing dining room on the ground floor has a passage across it and cannot accommodate a dining table. It is stated that he is also in need of a 'pooja room' on the ground floor as he and his wife are old people and it is difficult for him and his wife to go to the temple every day owing to her poor and deteriorating health.
On the other hand the respondent stated that the petitioner does not have bonafide requirement of the suit premises. It is stated that the area of entire building is 240 sq. yard which is a double story building and the entire ground floor except the suit shop is lying vacant. It is stated that the accommodation available with the petitioner is more than sufficient as the entire ground floor and atleast three rooms on the first floor are lying vacant. It is stated that the wife of the petitioner daily visits the nearby temple which is just 250 yards away from the residence of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner does not need any dining room and pooja room as the petitioner alongwith his wife is residing at the first floor where already exist a dining room and pooja room.
It is submitted by ld. counsel for the petitioner that the need of the petitioner is bonafide. It is stated that petitioner is of old age Page 16 of 26 person and in need of more care and comfort and the ground floor portion best suit to them. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner in support of this contention relied upon one judgment of Hon'ble High Court reported as Sudesh Kumar Soni & Anr. Vs. Prabha Khanna & Anr. RCR ( Rent) 534, wherein it is held that : " Old age itself is a kind of disease. An old aged person undoubtedly needs more care and comfort and the ground floor portion best suits such person."
Ld. counsel for the petitioner also relied upon another judgment reported as Sawarn Dass Bange Vs. Ram Parkash, 2010 (1) RCR (Rent) 244, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that : " Whenever the landlord would approach the court his requirement shall be presumed to be genuine and boanfide. It was further held that a heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove that the requirement is not genuine".
Ld. counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Pal Singh Vs. Sunder Singh, 1989 AIR 758, wherein it is held that : " Though the daughters of the respondent were married the Tribunal came to the conclusion the respondent as landlord had a right to ask for accommodation for the daughter's occasional visits".
In another judgment of Hon'ble High Court reported as Krishan Kumar Gupta Vs. Swadesh Bhushand Gupta 2008 (2) RCR Page 17 of 26 (Rent) 573, it is held that: " The requirement of the landlord to have sufficient accommodation for the families of his visiting daughters and son is also not fanciful requirements.
20. It is also stated by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the tenant cannot dictate the terms to the landlord how he should adjust himself without getting possession of the suit premises. It is also stated that the married daughters keep on visiting their father's home and will entitled to same accommodation and hence, need of the petitioner is bonafide.
21. On the other hand Ld. counsel for the respondent relied upon one judgment of Hon'ble High Court reported as Ram Niwas Jain Vs. Bimal Prasad Jain 85 (2000) DLT 316, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that : " Desire to live More Comfortably: No ground for showing bonafide requirement. Submission that dimensions of rooms are such that it was inconvenient to use rooms on first floor as bedrooms. This is hardly a ground for showing bonafide requirement of premises . It can only be expression of desire to live more comfortably. In another judgment reported as Satpal Vs. Nand kishore and another 23 (1983) DLT (SN) 6, it is held that : " there are some cases which shows that the visit of married daughters and guests may be Page 18 of 26 taken into account whilst assessing the needs of the landlord. While it would be wrong to give too much importance or weight to this factor. It is further held that bonafide requirement needs to be honest and genuine and not frivolous and whimsical. The landlord is not the final arbiter of his needs and the matter falls for decision by the Rent Controller, who must apply an objective standard, the criterion being the needs of a reasonable man".
22.In the light of the judgments relied upon by both the counsels I have proceeded further to assess the bonafide requirement of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the present petition that he need the dining room since the existing dining room on the ground floor has a passage across it and hence cannot accommodate both sofa set as well as dining table together. On the face of it there is an admission on the part of the petitioner that a dining room is still in existence on the ground floor. Admittedly the petitioner is residing on the ground floor and there is dining room on the ground floor also. The petitioner and his wife alone are residing on the ground floor . The petitioner has failed to prove how and in which manner the dining room on the ground floor is not suitable to them. It is stated that there is a passage across the existing dining room. However, the petitioner was using the same earlier also and there is no change of facts and circumstances which made this dining room unsuitable to the petitioner. Therefore, in the present facts and Page 19 of 26 circumstances it can very well be held that the need of the petitioner regarding dining room is a mere desire to live more comfortably. The petitioner was using the same as dining room since long time and he has failed to explain the circumstances which made this existing dining room unsuitable for him. Therefore, this is hardly a ground for showing bonafide requirement of the suit premises by the petitioner.
23. It is also stated by the petitioner that he is also in need of 'Pooja room' on the ground floor as he and his wife are old people and it is difficult for him and his wife to go to the temple every day owing to her poor and deteriorating health. On this issue I have relied upon one judgment of Hon'ble High Court reported as Ranjit KUmar Chopra Vs. Virinder Khosla RC Rev. 13/2007 dated 10.12.08, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held : " Requirement of the 'pooja room' is a bonafide requirement . No doubt that the petitioner is the master of his own choice and keeping in view his status in society the petitioner can have the requirement in the suit premises. This is no doubt that requirement of 'pooja room' on the ground floor , where the petitioner and his wife are residing is a bonafide requirement.
However, the court has to see whether in the existing accommodation further need of 'pooja room' raise by the petitioner is bonafide or not '. In the present case it is the admitted case of the petitioner that Page 20 of 26 during pendency of the present proceedings the petitioner has got vacant possession of three other shops. All these shops were got vacated by the petitioner by compromising with the tenant. Even though the eviction petition U/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act was filed by the petitioner regarding all these three shops. However,, no order of the court has been passed which established the bonafide requirement of the petitioner regarding these three shops. Therefore, acquisition of the shops during pending of the present petition by way of compromise does not establish that the possession of the said shop has been got by the petitioner for his bonafide requirement. A person may get the possession of the tenanted shop by way of compromise ,even if he does not have any bonafide requirement. There was no judgment or order of the court on merit to upheld the bonafide requirement of the petitioner regarding these three shops. Therefore, in view of this situation the court has to see the use of petitioner regarding these three shops. It is the admitted case that the area of this building in which the suit premises is situated is 240 sq. yards and except the suit premises all remaining area is in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner in the present case has failed to explain the use of these three shops for his bonafide requirement.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the need of the petitioner for further 'pooja room' despite having these three shops is bonafide. Page 21 of 26 Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, I hold that the petitioner has failed to prove that his need for the suit shop is bonafide for 'dining room' and 'pooja room'
24.That the petitioner is having no other reasonable suitable alternate accommodation It is stated by the petitioner that he is having no other reasonable suitable alternate accommodation available except the suit premises. The respondent in his written statement has alleged that during the pendency of petition the petitioner has got vacated three separate shops from three other tenants and now after getting the possession of these three shops, the petitioner is having sufficent alternate accommodation available.
The petitioner filed his evidence by way of affidavit EX PW 1/A and admitted that during the pendency of the present petition he has got vacated three shops from three different tenants by filing separate eviction petition. It is stated by the petitioner that the shop No.4 as shown in 'green colour' in the site plan was got vacated in Eviction Petition No. 21/10 which was reconverted into his library cum study room . It is further stated that the shop no. 5 as shown in red colour in the site plan was got vacated in Eviction Petition No. 23/10 and converted into one living room for the use and occupation of maid . It is stated that the shop No.2 as shown in 'mustard colour' was got vacated in Eviction Petition No. 22/10 and converted Page 22 of 26 it into an additional bed room. It is stated that the petitioner still need atleast two additional bed rooms out of which the petitioner want to reconvert the shop of the respondent in one such bed rooms.
25.The petitioner during his crossexamination has admitted that he is in process of shifting his books into a library. It is stated that he is having around 2000 books in his own library. The respondent has crossexamined the petitioner at length regarding use of this shop as library cum study room, however no material contradictions has emerged out. Therefore, the petitioner is able to establish the use of this shop as library cum study room. It is also stated by the petitioner that he was using the shop No.5 as living room for the use and occupation of the maid. During crossexamination the petitioner admitted that the maid used to work for his son . It is stated that the last maid servant's name was Savita but she is not working with him as on today. It is stated that he do not remember the name of the agency through whom the maid was sent to him. It is also stated that no police verification was carried out. It is voluntarily stated that the maid was employed with his son. It is stated that he do not know how much salary was paid to her. It is stated that he do not know whether the salary paid to her has been shown in income tax records. It is stated that the said records are maintained by her son.
Page 23 of 26
The petitioner has voluntarily stated that the maid was employed by his son. The petitioner is not able to disclose the name of agency through whom she was employed nor he was able to disclose the salary paid to her. It is also nowhere proved by the petitioner that this shop No.5 is being used by the maid as living room . Since the petitioner is not able to prove the use of shop No.5 as living room by the maid, therefore, the present facts and circumstances gives an assumption that this shop is lying vacant and the same is alternate accommodation available to the petitioner for his requirement, if any.
26. It is also pertinent to mention that the petitioner has stated that he requires three bed rooms for his three married daughters . It is no doubt true that a 'guest room' can be bonafidely required by the landlord for his married daughters or visiting guests but by no stretch of imagination it cannot be considered as bonafide requirement for having separate bed rooms for all his three married daughters, who visit him occasionally. If, we stretch the concept of bonafide requirement to this extent, all the whimsical and fanciful needs of the petitioner / landlord shall be included in the definition of 'bonafide requirement'. The court has to maintain the balance between the landlord and tenant . The court has to assess the requirement of petitioner or see whether it is mere the desire of the petitioner. The desire and requirement are two different things. Page 24 of 26 The landlord cannot got the suit premises vacated for his desire. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he requires three separate bed rooms for his three married daughter, who visit him occasionally during vacations is only a mere desire and cannot be considered as bonafide requirement.
The petitioner has stated that the first floor is in exclusive possession of his son , whereas the respondent has stated that the first floor is used by the petitioner and his son jointly and it is having sufficient accommodation available . The petitioner has failed to produce any independent witness or material on record to prove that the first floor is in exclusive possession of his son. The petitioner has even failed to examine his son to prove that the first floor of the suit premises is in exclusive possession of the son of the petitioner. The petitioner has pleaded this fact , therefore, the onus was upon the petitioner to prove that the first floor is in exclusive possession of his son and the petitioner is not having accommodation available at the first floor. The petitioner has failed to prove this fact , therefore, in the absence of proof of this fact it is clear that the petitioner is having sufficient accommodation available at the first floor of the suit premises also.
27.Therefore, considering over all circumstances , I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is having sufficient accommodation available in the suit premises which is at the first Page 25 of 26 floor and even on the ground floor and the need of the petitioner for 'dining room' and 'pooja room' are not bonafide. The need of petitioner for having three separate bed rooms for his three married daughters , who visit him occasionally is also not bonafide. The respondent is able to prove the existence of alternate accommodation available with the petitioner in the suit premises.
28. In view of the above discussions , I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to prove the necessary ingredient i.e. bonafide requirement and non availability of the alternate accommodation. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for grant of relief U/S 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. Accordingly eviction petition filed by the petitioner U/S 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act is dismissed. Both the parties shall bear their own cost.
Announced in the open court ( Devender Kr. Jangala) on 23.07.12 Addl. Rent Controller: Rohini Page 26 of 26 Page 27 of 26