Delhi High Court
K.K. Ohri vs Dr. Balraj Seth & Ors. on 13 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000IAD(DELHI)403, 82(1999)DLT906, 2000(52)DRJ275
ORDER Vijender Jain, J.
1. This Civil Revision has been filed aggrieved by an order passed by Additional Rent Controller on 18th April, 1995 whereby an eviction order was passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
2. Mr. Ishwar Sahai, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that accommodation available with the respondents was sufficient and the finding of the Additional Rent Controller was perverse on this score. He has further contended that respondent No. 1 Bhagwati Seth has one bachelor son who is about 50 years old and another son Arun Seth is not residing in India as he is settled with his family in United States of America. He has further contended that another co-owner of the premises Dr. Balraj Seth is 70 years old. His wife is no more. He is occupying the entire first floor consisting of two bed rooms, drawing and dining room. His one son has died. Widow of that son has got re-married. The deceased son has three children. They also live with their mother and they do not require any accommodation in the premises in question. He has further contended that another son of Dr. Balraj is employed in Coal India and presently posted at Nagpur where he has constructed his house and he has no intention to come back to Delhi and, therefore, he does not require any accommodation in the premises in question. He has further contended that Dr. Balraj Seth has got one daughter who is also settled in Kuwait alongwith her children.
3. Mr. Ishwar Sahai has contended that another branch of co-owners is Vikram Seth. His wife has also died and has has got two sons aged 19 and 15 years old and at best they require one room for them He has further contended that another co-owner Vidur Seth is not residing in India and he alongwith his family reside in United States of America. It has also been contended by Mr. Ishwar Sahai that accommodation available to all the coowner are two bed rooms, one drawing-cum drawing room in the hands of Bhagwati Seth. There are four bed rooms. i.e. two bed rooms on the first floor and two bed rooms on the second floor in the hands of Vikram Seth. Mr. Ishwar Sahai-learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that an additional room has been constructed on the second floor in the portion of the flat where Bhagwati Seth is residing.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that respondents are a family of status. They require the rooms for those family members who may be abroad but they keep on visiting their parents or relatives. It is also contended by Mr. Malhotra learned counsel for the respondents that accomodation is also required for the married daughters of the family as well as for other friends and relatives who visit the respondents. I have given my careful consideration to arguments advanced by counsel for the parties.
5. The whole premises of the argument of the petitioner is based on an assumption that it is the choice of a tenant as to how the premises has to be used by a landlord. The tenant can not compel a landlord to live in a particular fashion and method until and unless the requirement is totally shown as mala fide or not genuine. In the case in hand from the arguments of counsel for the parties as well from the perusal of the record, minimum rooms which are required by the family of the respondents if thirteen. Bhagwati Seth requires one room. Her Bachelor son who is 50 years of age can not be compelled to stay with his mother. Another son, who has not been mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioner, is a professor, Kiran Seth, who is a professor, requires one room for himself as well as one study room . That makes the requirement of the family of Bhagwati Seth to a minimum of four rooms. It cannot be said that Arun Seth another son of Bhagwati Seth will never visit India. Therefore, one room is also required for son of Bhagwati Seth or friends or other relatives. That makes the requirement of Bhagwati Seth to five Rooms.
6. Coming to the requirement of Dr. Balraj Seth, he has retired as Deputy Secretary from Government of India and he is doing some consultancy work. He requires one room for consultancy work apart from one room for himself. It is a case of the respondent before me that his son has been transferred to Bilaspur from Nagpur. To say that the son would not be requiring a room with his father is baseless. A son even if he is posted outside Delhi, will have a right to stay along with his parents in the parental home and, therefore, the requirement of that son has also to be taken into consideration Dr. Balraj Seth had another son who died. The widowed daughter-in-law got remarried. From the previous marriage she has three children. These three children also have a right to stay in the grand parents home. The daughter who is living in Kuwait may not be requiring accommodation in the premises in question. However, the requirement of one room either for the visiting grand children can not be termed as unreasonable or not bona fide. The total requirement in the bands of Dr. Balraj Seth would be one room for himself, one room for his son who is employed in Coal India and one room for visitors, friends and grand children and daughter who is staying abroad. That makes the total requirement to eight rooms.
7. Now, let me examine the requirement of Vikram Seth one of the co-owners of the premises in question. Vikram Seth requires one room for himself. I do not find any force in the arguments of counsel for the petitioner that two sons of Vikram Seth aged 19 and 15 years old have to be put in one room. Grown up children, particularly teenagers, require separate rooms, if they can afford. Why this accommodation of separate rooms should not be allowed in the case of these two young sons of Vikram Seth, just to accommodate a tenant? Therefore, Vikram Seth, requires three rooms; one room for himself and two rooms for his grown up children. Dr. Vikram Seth is a doctor by profession. He requires one room for consultancy as well. Therefore, the requirement of total rooms in the hands of Vikram Seth would be four room. That makes the total requirement of the rooms to twelve. Vidur Seth, another co-owner and respondent before me does not require a room for himself as he is settled in United States of America. However, Vikram Seth requires a room for his visiting brother or other guests. The total requirement, therefore, comes to thirteen rooms for the respondent. Admittedly, even if I deem room at the Barsati floor as a room, however, it has not been brought on record whether that room has got facilities of bath room and kitchen, still the accommodation in the hands of respondent falls short of requirement. I do not see any infirmity with the order passed by Additional Rent Controller. The petitioner has enjoyed the accommodation for more than four years after order of eviction was passed on 18th April, 1995. No merit in the civil revision petition.
8. Dismissed.