Delhi High Court
Bachan Singh vs Khem Chand on 18 February, 1987
Equivalent citations: 31(1987)DLT302
JUDGMENT N.N. Goswamy, J.
(1) This judgment will also dispose of civil revision (R) No. 1074 of 1985 as the point involved in both the cases is the same and the petitioner is also the same. The difference is only to the extent that in both these cases the tenants are different.
(2) The petitioner-owner filed two petitions under sections 14(l)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the tenants. Both the tenants are occupying one room and one kitchen each on the ground floor of the premises in question. The bona fide requirements as stated in paragraph 18(a) of the petition are, as under : "18(A): (i) that the premises let out for residential purposes to the respondent, are required bona fide by the petitioner for occupation as a residence for himself and for the residence of his family members dependant upon him. The petitioner is the owner-lannlord of the premises in dispute. The petitioner has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in Delhi except what has been stated herein below, which is far insufficient for 303 his needs and the needs of his family members dependent upon him. (ii) That the petitioner is an old man and is of 65 years of age and is heart patient. Doctor has advised the petitioner not to climb up stairs and as such the petitioner needs one separate bed room for himself on the ground floor. (iii) That the petitioner is in possession of two rooms on the ground floor and three rooms, kitchen, latrine and bath room on the first floor of the property bearing No. 1836/137, Tri Nagar, Delhi. (iv) That the family of the petitioner is consisting of self and four sons, out of which three are married, two married and one unmarried daughter, three grand-sons and two grand-daughters, and one widow sister. The youngest son of the petitioner who is unmarried is aged about 26 years and is a student of LL.B. final year and is also putting up with the petitioner and requires a separate room for his studies and he is of also marriageable age and his marriage could not be performed due to paucity of accommodation. (v) That the youngest daughter of the petitioner who is unmarried is aged about 23 years and for her also a separate bed room is required. Three bed rooms are required for three married sons and their children. The married daughters of the petitioner used to visit the petitioner along with their children and used to stay with the petitioner for number of days and for them also the accommodation is required. The widow sister of the petitioner used to visit the petitioner Along with their children and needs to be accommodated by the petitioner in the premises in his accommodation which is insufficient as detailed above. The petitioner needs one bed room for his occasional guests besides a drawing-cum-dining room. (vi) That the petitioner has insufficient accommodation which is not sufficient to accommodate the entire family as stated above. The petitioner thus bona finely requires the premises in suit for himself and for his family members dependent upon him for residential purposes and he can afford the loss of rent, which the respondent is paying him without any difficulty keeping in view the present income of the family and the status of the petitioner and his sons etc. The eldest son of the petitioner whose name is S. Harjit Singh is an Overseer and is drawing a monthly salary of about Rs. 1.500.00 . The second son of the petitioner whose name is S. Narinder Singh is doing his business and is earning Rs. 1,000.00 . The third son of the petitioner named Shri Jagjit Singh is an employee of Punjab & Sind Bank and he was recently transferred from Madras to Delhi and as such he Along with his family has shifted from Madras to Delhi and is residing with his father i e. the petitioner and it has become very difficult for the petitioner to accommodate his family due to the paucity of accommodation. An eviction petition is also filed against S. Sohan Singh, who is a tenant of the petitioner on the ground of section 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act."
(3) Summons in the prescribed form were issued to the tenants. In spite of service, no appearance was put in and consequently no application for leave to defend was filed. In spite of that the learned Additional Rent Controller went into the facts of the case and held that according to the plan filed, there were more rooms in the house and it had not been explained as to how the said rooms were being used. Consequently he held that the requirements were not bona fide and dismissed the petition. This order is clearly contrary to the statutory provisions existing in section 25B(4) of the Act, which reads as under: "25B(4).The tenant on whom the summons is duly served (whether in the ordinary way or by regd. post) in the form specified in the Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premise unless be files an affidavit staling the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as herein-after provided: and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order eviction on the ground aforesaid."
(4) The provision is mandatory and if no application for leave to defend is filed, it is obligatory for the Rent Controller to accept the statements made by the owner landlord and order the eviction. Surprisingly without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain, the Additional Controller on his own looked into the plan and came to the conclusion that it had not been explained as to bow the accommodation available in the house was being used. This could be clarified only after the application for leave to defend bad been filed and leave had been granted and further the petitioner bad given his evidence. In any case, the petitioner has explained that the entire first floor except the three rooms which are described as stirs are in occupation of a school As regards the ground floor except the two rooms, the others are in occupation of the tenants and as such are not available to the petitioner.
(5) For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is allowed and the eviction order is passed in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent-tenant. The eviction order will not be executed for a statutory period of six months from to-day. Since there is no appearance for the respondent, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.