Delhi High Court
Jiwan Lal vs Gurdial Kaur And Ors. on 3 January, 1995
Equivalent citations: 57(1995)DLT262, 1995RLR162
Author: Arun Kumar
Bench: Arun Kumar
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar, J.
(1) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 20/03/1993. The learned Addl.Rent Controller has passed on order of eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the respondents from the premises in question. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgment on the followinggrounds:-(a) ownership; (b) purpose of letting; and (c) bona fide requirement.
(2) It is submitted that the petitioners have failed to establish that they are the owners of the premises in question. The husband of petitioner No. 1Raghubir Singh Was a lessee with respect to the premises under M/s Kanna Mal Chhanna Mal. The petitioner herein was inducted as a tenant by Kuldip Kaur, daughter of Raghubir Singh, in the year 1969-70.
(3) There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(l)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to theproperty. ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the ownership of the premises. He is only a tenant and according to him was inducted by Kuldip Kaur, daughter of deceased Raghubir Singh. Raghubir Singh held lease of the premises from Kanna Mal Chhanna Mal. Aw 1 Smt.Gurdayal Kaur has stated that the lease of the property was in the name of her husband Raghubir Singh and after his death she has inherited the same. House tax bill Aw 1/2 is in the name of Raghubir Singh. Therefore, I do not find anything to disturb the finding of the Court below on this point.
(4) This bring me to the point regarding letting purpose. Tenancy premises consists basically one room and the respondent is admittedly residing therein.According to the petitioners the premises was let for residential purpose. However,in the written statement the respondent took the stand that he is doing the business of repairing of type writers in the name and style of Alok Typewriters. According to the respondent on one side of the room he is doing the said business. It appears from the material on record that at best the respondent might have been doing the typewriter repair business as hobby or as side income. The one room tenement is basically meant for the residence of the petitioner and his family. The respondent has further stated that he started doing this business after the enhancement of rent to Rs. 37.00 per month. The initial rent was Rs. 35.00 per month. An increase of Rs.2.00 per month would hardly inspire confidence regarding permission being granted by the owner/landlord to start business in the premises. As per the Explanation to Section 14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act if the user of the premises is converted incidentally for commercial purposes also by the tenant without the consent of the landlord the case would still fall within the said provision. Therefore, even if the respondent started doing typewriter repair work from the premises in suit it cannot be said to be a case of premises having let out for residential-cum-commercialpurpose. The attack on the finding of the Trial Court in this behalf is, therefore,misconceived and is rejected.
(5) Now we are left with the point regarding personal bona fide need of the petitioners qua the premises in dispute. Admittedly the petitioners have no other residential accommodation in Delhi. Neither any other premises has been suggested by the tenant nor anything has been shown in this behalf. According to the petitioners, Gurdayal Kaur Along with her family members has been residing with "Gurdev Singh who is the elder brother of deceased Raghubir Singh. The case of the petitioners is that they have no source of income in Punjab and, therefore, they want to settle down in Delhi. Two daughters of Gurdayal Kaur petitioner No. 1 are already married in Delhi. If the petitioners have no source of income in their village and they want to settle down in Delhi to make a living, there is nothing wrong in it. For settling down in Delhi the petitioners have asked for their own premises. It is natural that when the petitioners have a place to stay in Delhi of their own why should they live with relations and at their mercy just to accommodate the tenant who happens to occupy their premises. Therefore, the challenge to the bona fide requirement of the petitioners is without any merit.The result is that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference with the judgment of the learned Additional Rent Controller. The revision petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.