Delhi High Court
Mr. V.P. Saxena vs Mr. Avinash Chander Bhasin on 8 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: 94(2001)DLT16, 2001(60)DRJ385
Author: Vikramajit Sen
Bench: Vikramajit Sen
ORDER Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. In this Revision Petition the Judgment dated 27.2.1992 of the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the 'ARC') has been called into question. An eviction petition had ben filed in 1998 under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control ?Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act'). The ARC has found in favor of the Petitioner in respect of the fact that the Petitioner is the owner of the demised property; that a relationship of Landlord and Tenant existed between the Petitioner and Respondent; and that the premises have ben let for residential purpose only. On the crucial question of whether the Petitioner requires the premises bona fide for its personal use, the ARC was not satisfied at all with the pleaded case and has dismissed the eviction petition. Although, Learned Counsel for the Respondent attempted to assail the findings of the ARC on the issues decided in the Petitioner's favor, I have declined to hear him in this regard for the reason that no Cross-Objection have been filed by the Respondent/Tenant. In this respect Mr. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Respondent had at once conceded. Accordingly, arguments were restricted to the question of the 'bona fide requirement' of the Petitioner had been proved.
2. The petitioner HUF, at the time when the Petition was filed, consisted of himself and his wife, three daughters, one son and the mother of Shri V.P. Saxena. To this extent there is no dispute between the parties. In the petition, at first, it had been stated that accommodation is required for the Petitioner's "younger brother Pradeep Saxena, studying in B.A. First Year who is also dependent both for residence and finance upon the Petitioner due to the sudden demise of the father of the Petitioner." This has been very artfully drafted so as to give the impression that the father of Pradeep Saxena and V.P. Saxena are one and the same person. However, it should be recalled that the Petitioner in the present proceedings is an HUF. In the reply the Respondent/Tenant had stated that Pradeep Saxena was not the brother of Shri V.P. Saxena, Karta of the Petitioner Hindu Undivided Family. Thereupon in the first amendment, it had been pleaded that "even though the said Pradeep Saxena is not the real brother of the Petitioner but he has always been treated as real brother by the Petitioner and a son by the father of the Petitioner....." In order to demonstrate bonafides, a clean breast should have been made at the very beginning. In his Statement-in-Chief Pradeep Saxena deposed that he was living with his elder brother along with his wife and two children. In Cross-examination he had admitted that he had passed his matriculation examination from Ambala in 1979, and that he has undergone his entire school education from that city. He has further deposed that he was living with his real elder sister in Ambala; that he has no bank account in Delhi; that till about 1980 he was registered as a voter in Ambala; that he did not know about other residents in the locality except for one Mr. Narula; that he had never attended any wedding in the neighborhood. All these factors were kept in the mind of ARC when he refused to accept the Petitioner's version and claim as to the need of this Pradeep Saxena. Even if I had arrived at contrary conclusion, which may emphatically state I do not, it would not be justified for me to set aside the findings of the ARC on this issue since no jurisdictional error has been committed. However, since I am in agreement with the findings, it is also necessary to underscore that it is difficult to accept that where a Petitioner makes false pleadings, his 'bona fides' should be accepted. Although, it is not an inflexible approach, where a Petitioner has exemplified his willingness to plead falsehood, the Court would be fully justified in viewing his testimony with considerable reservation and doubt, and tainted even on other issues. There is a discernable distinction between overstating a case, and pleading a false case; an exaggeration, as in the former, may not be fatal.
3. It is also not disputed that the Petitioner had let out the Ground Floor of the premises to a tenant in 1977 under Section 21 of the DRC Act. At that time the First Floor was occupied by a Tenant named Chander Mohan and the Second Floor was in the possession of the Respondent. The ground given by the Tenant for justifying the grant of a 'limited tenancy' was that he had taken a loan form the L.I.C. which loan had to be repaid. In the present Eviction Petition however, it has been stated by Shri V.P. Saxena that the Ground Floor premises had ben previously let under Section 21 since he was then posted at Calcutta. The variance in the testimony on this issue cannot be ignored and is indicative of the lack of bona fides.
4. When the present Petition was filed in 1978, i.e. one year after the letting under Section 21 of the DRC Act, the Petitioner's family was residing at Sitaram Bazar. It is also in evidence that the family income (the salary of V.P.Saxena) was Rs.1200/- per month at that time. The accommodation available in Sitaram Bazar comprises basically a one-room set. This was in keeping with the salary of the Petitioner. Although, it was explained by Learned Counsel for the Petition/Landlord that the salary has increased from time to time, the family income has always been such as to place the Petitioner in the Middle-income bricket. This does not lay a foundation for a claim for an affluent life-style bordering on opulence which the Petitioner has made out for himself and the family. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that one bed-room is required by the Petitioner and his wife, one for his son who is now married and has a wife and child; that another bed-room is required for the Petitioner's daughter Purnima Saxena who is stated to have been estranged from her husband. The claim, however, for a separate room for the child of the Petitioner's son, and a separate bed-room for the daughter of Purnima Saxena is not bona fide and not in line and commensurate with the family life-style in Sitaram Bazar. For a family with limited income, it cannot be appreciated and accepted that they would genuinely require separate bed-rooms for eh of the children. There is no justifiable reason as to why the daughter Purnima Saxena cannot share a bed-room along with her mother and/or with her cousin of tender years. No doubt, the Petitioner is the person who must be the best judge of his residential needs, but when the Court finds the case pleaded as wholly incredible, it is not helplessly bound to accept the professed need as genuine. A realistic approach has to be taken where the family had been accustomed to living in a one-room set in Sitaram Bazar in Old Delhi. It cannot be believed that suddenly each member of the family requires their own bed-rooms. he family has not been visited with sudden wealth or surged income as would explain and justify such an opulent life-style for the Petitioner's need to escalate and expand from this one room set to not just the entire ground floor, but also the entire first floor as well as second floor in too much to swallow. The entire Petition discloses mala fides.
5. A case has also been made out for the requirement of one room as an office. Even if this need existed in 1978, this scarcely exists today as the Petitioner has retired for several years. Even then, having acquired the first floor, there is ample room even for an office.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent had brought to the notice of this Court that the complete first floor, which corresponds with the accommodation available on the Ground Floor presently been occupied by the Petitioner, has been vacated. It is submitted by Mr. Jain that though the tenant has offered to hand over possession must earlier, but his offer was deliberately vacillated and procrastinated upon by the Petitioner since it would defeat its claim against the Respondent. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has explained that the offer by these tenants had not been taken up because of arrears in the payment of various dues; and hence an undertaking by the Tenant was to be obtained before the Civil Judge. The dues are explained to amount to approximately Rs.60,000/- at that stage. For a person pleading dire need of accommodation, hesitancy to accept possession because of the likelihood of temporarily jeopardising the liability of Rs.60,000/- is indicative only of the lack of the need for additional accommodation. Furthermore, the Petitioner should not have waited for the Respondent/Tenant to plead the factum of the vacation of the first floor. Be that as it may, it is not in controversy that the Petitioner has now received the possession of the First Floor. This has doubled the accommodation available to the family, and in addition provided them with a Puja Room.
7. At the present moment, the reasonably assessable need of the Petitioner at the highest is for one bed-room for the Petitioner and his wife, one bed-room for his son and daughter-in-law, one bed-room for his separated daughter Purnima and her family assuming that she has separated from her husband, one guest room and one room for use of the younger children in the family. Since the claim by the Petitioner is that the property belongs to an HUF, then there is scarcely any justification for any claim for separate room for even the young children in the family. The accommodation available with the Petitioner, on the ground and first floor, is more than sufficient for their needs.
8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner had relied on the decisions reported in Rohan Lal vs. Madan Mohan Lal Sharma, 1998 (III), Apex Decision Delhi 851, Sanwal Ram Agarwal vs. smt. Gianwati, 1999 (1) Apex Decision 581, Avtar Singh vs. Gurbux Singh,1999 V AD(Delhi) 306, Uttam Chand Suri vs. Smt. Ram Murti Gupta, 1980 (2) RCJ 410, Shri Ram Prakash Saroj vs. Shri Mohinder Singh, 1981 (1) RCJ 770, and Ram Partap Sharma vs. Smt. Rukmani Devi, 2000 (I) AD (Delhi) 458. None of these decisions persuades me to hold that the impugned judgment discloses that the ARC has incorrectly exercised jurisdiction.
9. No jurisdictional error has been committed by the ARC. However, the brevity of the arguments of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has persuaded me from desisting to award heavy costs.
10. The Petition in without merit and is dismissed. C.M.918/2001 and 1589/2001.
11. The above applications are accordingly disposed off.