Delhi High Court
Vivek Gupta And Ors. vs Lakshmi Chand Bararia on 28 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: 62(1996)DLT177, 1996 A I H C 4699, (1997) 1 RENCR 15, (1996) 1 RENTLR 585, (1996) 62 DLT 177
JUDGMENT C.M. Nayar, J.
(1) The present petition is directed against the judgment dated 7th March, 1986, of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the petition for eviction of the petitioners under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rant Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was dismissed. The eviction was sought in respect of the demised premises forming part of Property No. 30/20, Shakti Nagar, Delhi.
(2) The brief facts are that the property was previously owned by Smt. Parsani Devi who was grand mother of the petitioners. She bequeathed the same vide Will dated 16th December, 1971. The said Smt. Parsani Devi died on 23rd March, 1982 and thereafter the petitioners became owners of the property. It was further alleged that the respondent had even attorney to the petitioners and he had started paying rent to them. The demised premises were let out to the respondent for the purpose of residence and now the same are required bonafide by the petitioners for their residence and residence of their family members.
(3) The petitioners further alleged that the accommodation available with them comprised of two rooms, one verandah, four stores with bathroom, Wc and Kitchen on the first floor. The family of the petitioners consisted of themselves, 3 sisters aged 21, 14 and 12 years respectively besides their parents. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were minors at the time of filing of the petition for eviction and they were maintained and looked after by their father Sh. R.D. Gupta, It was alleged that the said father of the petitioners owns a house at Saraswati Vihar which was not at all suitable residential accommodation for the petitioners because they were studying in Government Senior Secondary School which was just opposite to the residence of the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 was a student of Ramjas College which was also at a short distance from the property in dispute and that the sisters were studying in the school and college near the demised premises and they also required to stay there.
(4) The respondent filed written statement and admitted himself to be a tenant in respect of the demised premises. However, it was alleged that the petitioners are neither the owners nor the landlords of the demised premises. Sh. R.D. Gupta was the owner and the landlord of the premises. It was further denied that the premring was residential and according to the respondent he had been doing business motor tyres in the premises in dispute under the name and style of Laxmi chand & Sons which had since been closed since l977.The petition was filed with malaise intention to get the rent enhanced and it was alleged that Mr. R.D. Gupta asked that respondent to raise the rent to Rs.1,000.00 and on his refusal,the petition for eviction was filed. It was further stated that the said R.D. ( Gupta has already got a two and a half storied house and that accommodation is sufficient for the requirement of the petitioners as well as of R.D. Gupta and his family members The present accommodation which was alleged to be in possession of the petitioners comprises of 7 rooms, big glazed verandah, kitchen, toilet and bathroom on the first floor of the house and therefore it was sufficient for the need of the family.
(5) The learned Additional Rent Controller examined the respective pleas of the parties and on appreciation of evidence held that : (A)The petitioners are proved to be owners, of the premises in dispute. (b) The premises were let out to the respondent for residential purposes. (c) The accommodation presently available with the petitioners in the building in the property in question is sufficient for their need because admittedly the entire green portion in Exhibit A-3 is in their occupation The same comprised of two room is, covered verandah, besides four stores etc. The petitioners were unmarried and there was no necessity of four stores and, therefore, one of the said stores could be used as bedroom for any one of the petitioners. (d) It was established on record that father of the petitioners has got a big house at Saraswati Vihar. Therefore, the petitioners have got an alternative suitable accommodation.
(6) The petitioners accordingly we're held to be in no need of further accommodation and their requirement was not bona fide. The petition for eviction as a consequence was dismissed.
(7) The learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Rent Controller has gravely erred in not holding the requirement of the petitioner as bonafide in view of the facts of the present case. The Additional Rent Controller has no doubt correctly held that father of the petitioners Sh. R.D. Gupta, Ms wife and 3 daughters could not, in any manner be held to be dependent on the petitioners for their residential need. In any case, the said Sh. R.D. Gupta has his own house at Saraswati Vihar which is quite suitable for his own as well as for the requirement of his wife and daughters.'The suit property, however , in the name of petitioners who are accepted to be owners and landlords. The present ages of the petitioners are 30,28 and 26 years respectively. It is further contended that two of them have since got married and their need has increased and the subsequent events can obviously be taken into consideration to determine the requirement of the petitioners. The Rent Controller has merely rejected the picas on the grounds, firstly that the petitioners were unmarried and there was no necessity of four stores and one of the said stores could be used as bedroom by any one of the petitioners. Secondly, the petitioners have re-let two rooms to two tenants, namely, Ghansham and Jai Narain. It was admitted by petitioner No. I that in the portions detailed as X and Y as cited in Exhibit A-3, there were two tenants although it was denied that room marked X had been let out to Ghansham during the pendency of the eviction petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has referred to me the site plan Exhibit A-3 which will indicate that the rooms marked X and Y measured 10'10 and "x9'.7" and 11'.9"x8'.10" respectively. The first room is shown as a garage. These two rooms which have been allegedly let out during the pendency of the eviction proceedings can not be held as suitable for residential purposes as ground floor of the building in question is only for commercial user. Merely because petitioner No. 1 was also using a small room as an office could not prove that the requirement of the petitioners was not bonafide. Thirdly, the Controller has held that the petitioners could convert one of the stores as bedroom and use the same as such. These stores are indicated in the site plan of the first floor. All these stores are very small and cannot be held to be substitutes for bedrooms or living rooms for the use of the petitioners, lt has been held in Brij Mohan v. Sripal jain, that a room or Kotha, area of which is less than 100 sq.ft. will not fall within the definition of a living room. I have also perused the site plan which will indicate that the stores can merely be used as stores and they cannot be converted into a proper residential place for any one of the petitioners. In Sarla Mittal v. K.C. fain. , it has been clearly held that the landlord is entitled to live comfortably in his own house and the bonafide requirement has to be assessed on the basis of circumstances. It is also held in this judgment that a garage or servant quarter cannot be said to be fit for use as bedrooms and their user as such due to scarcity of accommodation does not show that need of landlord has come to an end. In the present case, the Controller has taken into consideration the small stores which were available with the petitioners as well as one garage which was being used for commercial purpose which had since been let out, as ground for holding that the requirement was not bonafide. The finding cannot be sustained in view of the settled law and is accordingly reversed.
(8) The next question which arises for consideration is whether the house at Saraswati Vihar which is in the name of the father of the petitioner can be termed as a suitable alternative accommodation. The petitioners, no doubt, are the sons of R.D. Gupta who owns this property but it cannot be said that they have to be compelled to stay with the father in case they have chosen to stay separately in the property which accrued to them on the death of the grand mother and moreover it has been stated before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the premises at Saraswati Vihar were let out in 1981 and are not available for occupation. In any case the law is well settled that it is always open for the landlord to stay in his own accommodation and he is the best judge of his residential requirement. It is not open for the Court to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live or to prescribe him the residential standards. Smt. Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1987 (2) Vol. 31 Rent Control Reporter, 580).
(9) The matter was heard and kept on board from 22nd February, 1996 but there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent despite service. It is also noted in order dated 8th March, 1995 of Arun Kumar, J. that report on the notice of application for early hearing was of refusal. Despite service, respondent is not present in Court nor represented by his Counsel even today. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and an order of eviction is passed in respect of the tenanted premises shown as red in the site plan Exhibit A-3. The decree shall, however, not be executable till 31st August, 1996. There will be no order as to costs.