Delhi High Court
K.B. Mathur And Anr. vs Bhagwant Singh on 6 May, 1988
Equivalent citations: 35(1988)DLT211, 1988RLR491
JUDGMENT P.K. Bahri, J.
(1) This civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') against order dated February 7, 1986 of Shri D.K. Saini, Additional Rent Controller, by which he has dismissed the eviction petition brought by the petitioners on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence as covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.
(2) The present eviction petition was brought on May 15, 1980, by Shri K.B.Mathur and his son Shri R.B.Mathur on the averments that two rooms, kitchen, bath & toilet as shown in the plan filed Along with the petition, were let out to SardarBhagwantSinghonMayl3,1975, under an oral agreement at the rental of Rs. 500.00 per month for residential purposes and the two petitioners, being the owners and landlords of this property No. 18-Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, in which the tenancy premises are located on the first floor required the said premises bonafide for residence for themselves and for the family members dependant upon them and they have no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Bhagwant Singh had died during the pendency of the proceedings and his widow Smt. Ishar Kaur was substituted as legal representative. In the original eviction petition it was pleaded that petitioner No. 1 is a retired Chairman the of Railway Board and is presently director of eight companies which were enumerated in the petition and he had been also Chairman of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited from 1960 to 1965 and Chairman of Hindustan Machine Tools from 1965 to 1968 and Chairman of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Corporation in the year 1967 and Chairman of Triveni Structurals for the year 1966-67 and is also a trustee of Thapar Charitable Trust. Calcutta, and is assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax and being director of eight companies, he has to have conferences, meetings and consultations with the officials of the various eight companies at this house and he feels dire necessity of having at least two separate rooms for himself. It was mentioned that accommodation available for residence to the petitioners is only one drawing-cum-dining room, two bed rooms of which one is used by petitioner No. 1 himself and the other by his wife, one small pooja room, one pantry, bath room and W.C., Verandah and courtyard. It was pleaded that the petitioner has only two sons, namely, petitioner No. 2-R.B. Mathur and one K.C. Mathur. R.B. Mathur is stated to be a Class I Officer being a Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, at the time of filing the petition, was posted outside Delhi and he has one daughter and one son and the said daughter was to come to Delhi for further studies after completing her school education in Kotah and she would be needing a separate room for sleeping and for her studies. The son of petitioner No. 2 was also to be of marriageable age and his marriage was also to be performed at the premises in question. It was also mentioned that the second son of petitioner No. 1 KC. Mathur is the General Manager of Ratnakar Shipping, Calcutta, and Director of Hindustan Times and Neel Giri Tea Estates and his grandson Vivek Mathur is also to come to Delhi for studying in College, and would be needing a separate room.
(3) It was emphasized that petitioners 1 & 2 and their families are persons of high status and are accustomed to high standard of living and petitioner No. 1's married daughter and her children also quite often visit the petitioners at the premises in question and various other guests also come and stay for short periods and as petitioner and his wife are aged persons, their married daughter, who is living in Delhi, has to visit them quite often and occasionally spends her weekends with them and petitioner No. 2, having a transferable job, has to face the transfer every two or three years, which results in disturbing the academic career of his children necessitating that the children should come to Delhi and stay at the house, so also his wife so that his daughter could receive good education at Delhi. It was also mentioned that the goods of petitioner No. 2 are also kept in Delhi and the second son of the petitioner and his family also visit quite often on official tours Delhi and stay with them.
(4) During the pendency of the eviction petition, petitioner No. 2 was transferred to Delhi and it is the case of the petitioners that now petitioner No. 2, his wife and daughter are living in the said accommodation with petitioner No. 1 and are experiencing great hardship and difficulty inasmuch as there is no proper accommodation available for the immediate needs of the petitioners and their family members.
(5) I may mention that it is, indeed, not in dispute before me that the petitioners are the owners and landlords of the premises in question and the premises in question had been let out for residential purposes only. Initially leave to defend application was filed by Bhagwant Singh-tenant who was alive at that time. The main plank of the defense taken in that leave to defend application was that only petitioner No. 1 and his wife are living on the ground floor and they are in possession of reasonably suitable residential accommodation and that one bed room and a toilet had been given by petitioner No. 1 to his daughter Mrs. Rajni, who is running a school known as 'Magic Years' and the petition had been filed with the malafide intention to get the premises vacated and re-let the same at higher rent as the rents in that locality have sky-rocketed. It was pleaded that the accommodation shown to be in possession of the petitioners is incorrect in as much as no plan had been filed by the petitioners in respect of the said accommodation. It was not mentioned in the leave to defend application as to what more accommodation is available to petitioners 1 & 2. An affidavit of Bhagwant Singh was also filed Along with this application in which same facts were reiterated. One thing which must be noticed here is that the accommodation shown in possession of Mrs. Rajni for running the school was one large room and a toilet. I am referring to this fact at this stage because later on some confusion has been sought to be created by the respondent as to the actual accommodation available to the petitioners for their residence in the said house. After the death of Bhagwant Singh, Ishar Kaur moved leave to defend application in which besides reiterating the same facts as have been noticed by me with regard to the dispute between the parties, it was again reiterated that one large room and a toilet and the back courtyard are being used by Mrs. Rajni for running a Kinder Garden school. In para 2(o) it was pleaded by Ishar Kaur that the petitioners have a large huge size drawing-cum-dining room, a covered verandah, three big bed rooms, three bath rooms and water closets, a huge pooja room, one pantry, a huge courtyard, besides one big room and one small room which are during the day time used by Mrs. Rajni for running a school although the said daughter is not residing in the suit premises. Now, here variance bad taken place with regard to the accommodation allegedly used by Mrs. Rajni for running a school. I have mentioned earlier that in the affidavit of Bhagwant Singh it was mentioned that only one big room and covered back verandah were being used for running a school. Now Ishar Kaur has turned that covered back varandah into a small room. Be that as it may, the leave to defend application was allowed.
(6) Smt. Ishar Kaur in the written statement besides taking the pleas that petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands inasmuch as they had failed to disclose the exact details of accommodation available with them and also the number of family members dependent upon them and that eviction is sought with a malafide purpose of increasing the rent and that commercial user of the premises was not premissible, still daughter of petitioner No. 1 was running a school in the said premises, on merits she pleaded that the petitioners do not require the premises under her tenancy for residential purposes at all. She pleaded that petitioner No. 1, being a reiterd officer, has with him three bed rooms with three attached bath rooms, a big drawing-cum-dining hall, a pooja room and another small room besides having a covered lobby in the front and open lawn in the front and an open lawn in the back and a garage. She pleaded that the whole property on the ground floor is a very palatial bungalow and is more than sufficient for petitioner No. 1 and his wife. She also pleaded that besides the garage there is a servant quarter also available on the backside of the ground floor. She pleaded that petitioner No. 2 is not dependent member of the family of petitioner No. 1 and being a highly placed railway officer is having independent government accommodation. She pleaded that petitioner No. 1 and his wife besides a servant are only residing in the ground floor of the house and they have more than sufficient accommodation for their needs. She mentioned that one room and back courtyard are being used by Mrs. Rajni during day time for running a school. In the replication it was emphasized by the petitioner that in all there are three bed rooms with attached bath rooms, a pooja room and a big hall converted into drawing-cum-dining room with attached verandah and kitchen are available on the ground floor, and since from the day of construction of the house, one bed room with the attached bath room out of the said accommodation has been given to Mrs. Rajni for running a school, so only the remaining accommodation which, inter alia, consists of two bed rooms is available with the petitioners. It was controverter that petitioner No. 2 has been allotted any government accommodation. It was reiterated that petitioner No. 2 on being transferred to Delhi, has been residing in the house in question with his family.
(7) During the pendency of the case, it is admitted fact that Mrs. Rajni stopped using the said one bed room and back covered verandah for school purposes and the said accommodation also became available to the petitioners and their family members for their residence. It was also clarified in the replication that all the household goods of petitioner No. 2 stand stored in the garage for want of the space on the ground floor and as a result petitioner No. 2 has to park his Car in the drive-way. It was mentioned that petitioner No. 2 cannot get allotted any government residential accommodation as he is co-owner of the house in question.
(8) During the pendency of the case, on an application moved by the petitioner under Section 15(2) of the Act, an order was made requiring the respondent to deposit arrears of rent and up-to-date rent within one month and continue to deposit month to month by 15th of every following month. An appeal was filed by the respondent against that order but was dismissed. The respondent did not deposit any amount in compliance with this order and thus, on application being moved under Section 15(7) of Act, the defense of the respondent was struck out.
(9) In support of their case, petitioner No. 1 appeared as Aw 1 and petitioner No. 2 as AW2 and AW3 Phool Chand, a neighbour, was also examined Aw 1 .petitioner No. 1, besides proving the lease-deed, copy of which is Ex. Aw 1/2, showing that bath the petitioners are co-owner with equal shares of the property in question, deposed about the accommodation available to the petitioners and their family members on the ground floor of the house and gave the details of his family and also stated that son of petitioner No. 2 has since been married while the daughter of petitioner No. 2 is studying and living in the premises in question. It is also admitted fact that the son of petitioner No. 2 is now not residing in Delhi but is stated to be visiting his parents and grand parents at the house in question off and on. He also deposed that from the very beginning he and his wife are accustomed to live in their separate bed rooms, his bed room has a separate entrance from the outside enabling the people to come to his bed room and meet him there as he needs a quiet place for himself for his studies, writing work and resting. He deposed that although be was not in favor of renting out the upper portion to anyone, still Bhagwant Singh was accommodated as he knew him and Bhagwant Singh was in dire necessity and had given assurance that he would vacate the premises whenever required by the petitioners. He deposed that as petitioner No. 2 and his family has started living in the house in question per force, his wife has to vacate her bed room for their convenience and shifted to the bed room of petitioner No. 1. He also deposed that the grown-up daughter of petitioner No. 2 has no separate bed room and has to use the drawing room for sleeping and studying purposes He also deposed regarding the factum of the goods of petitioner No. 2 lying stored in the garage for paucity of accommodation in the main house. He proved the site-plan marked Al, which was filed Along with the petition, depicting mostly the tenanted premises. Petitioner No. 1 was subjected to thorough crossexamination. From his testimony in the cross-examination, various sizes of rooms were brought out including that a big verandah is covered which he described as a lobby and he was made to state that in the plan Ex. A1 the lawns, a raised platform and open space at the back side and the garage portion have not 'been shown. A suggestion was given that the petitioners had deliberately concealed the said accommodation in order to mislead the court and that has been the main plank of the forceful arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent. No suggestion was given in the crossexamination that petitioner No. 2 has been allotted any particular government accommodation. In case petitioner No 2 bad been allotted any government accommodation it would not have been difficult for the respondent to have found out the particulars of such accommodation, rather petitioner No. 1 has categorically stated in cross-examination that in his ration card they are shown as four members including the servant and that petitioner No. 2 has a separate gas connection. Petitioner No. 2(AW2) also made a categorical statement oath that he and bids wife and unmarried daughter are living in the house in question since his transfer to Delhi and he has not been allotted any government accommodation and his luggage stands stored in the garage for paucity of accommodation and that he needs to meet government officials at his residence because of his high status in the railway and there is no proper accommodation available for their needs. He was also cross-examined thoroughly and it is pertinent to mention that in the examination-in-chief, which was carried out on September 10, 1984, this witness proved the map Ex.AW2/1 showing the ground floor accommodation in detail available to the petitioners and their family members. At the time the map was exhibited no objection was raised. On the next date of hearing which was on October 20, 1984, counsel for the respondent raised an objection to the exhibiting of the said plan on record as no reliance has been placed on such a plan initially and no application has been given for producing such a plan in Court. He was also cross-examined with regard to the accommodation marked at in the plan which did not show the verandahs, the lawns etc. There was no cross-examination with respect to the correctness or otherwise of he accommodation shown in the map. Ex. AW2/1. As so much dispute was being raised while cross-examining AW1 regarding the actual accommodation available to the petitioners on the ground floor of the house, the petitioner were, in my opinion, well advised in bringing on record a detailed plan Ex. AW2/1 showing the said accommodation. In spite of the fact that in cross examination it became apparent that respondent was not seriously challenging the factum that petitioner No. 2, his wife and daughter and one servant were living in the house in question yet I find that the Additional Rent Controller was totally misled in appraising the evidence and giving the findings that in fact, it is not proved that there were any servants living in the house and that petitioners are guilty of concealing the actual accommodation available with them inasmuch as they did not show the garages and the servant quarters, front and the back lawns, back covered varandah and the front verandah and the drive-ways and the open space and so he went on to dismiss the eviction petition. He also gave the finding that three bed rooms accommodation available in the house is more than reasonably suitable for the needs of the petitioners and their family members. He did not lay any emphasis; rather he did not even refer to the standard of living of the petitioners and the factum of petitioner No. 2 holding a high ranking government office and he having shifted to the house in question after being transferred to Delhi needing some suitable accommodation for him and his family members. The judgment of the Additional Rent Controller, to say the least, is perverse. He has, for no good reason, ruled out of consideration Ex. AW2/1 map which depicted the whole of the accommodation available on ground floor. It was admitted fact in the pleadings that there are garages and servant quarters, still the Additional Rent Controller thought that the two servant quarters constructed over the garages are available to the landlords and their family members and they have concealed that accommodation. The landlords in an eviction petition for bonafide requirement are to satisfy the court that they are not in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation. The garages and the servant quarters are not meant to be used for living purpose so as to be taken into consideration to see whether the landlords and their family members are in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation. Mere omission of the landlords to refer to the servant quarters and the garages, the lawns and the verandahs is not fatal to the case of the landlords in establishing the ground of bonafide requirement. After all the landlords and their family members have to show as to how much living accommodation in the shape of bed rooms, bath rooms, kitchen, drawing-cum-dining room are available to them. The other amenities like lawns, verandahs, servant quarters and garages are not the accommodation meant for the actual living of the landlords and their family members. So, omission to give details of the same in the eviction petition does not mean that the landlords are guilty of concealment of any accommodation in order to mislead the court.
(10) At any rate, as arguments were being vehemently addressed with regard to the actual accommodation available to the landlords and some doubts were being expressed regarding the veracity of the plan Ex. AW2/1, so with the consent of counsel for both the parties, a Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the spot and inspect the premises and verify whether the premises shown in the map tallies with the actual position or not. He was also directed to see as to the persons living in the main building and the garages and the rooms over the garages and also notice the luggage lying in different places in the premises. He has filed the report. In one respect, which is material, the report is categorical i.e. Ex. AW2/1 map depicts the correct position. Some objections have been filed by the respondent to this report highlighting that the Local Commissioner went out of the scope of the commission by taking notice of certain facts narrated by the persons found present at the spot. Even if we ignore the facts told to the Local Commissioner by the persons present at the spot, even then it does not make any material difference because what this Court was concerned was about the correctness of the map Ex.AW2/1. It is not shown how the report of the Local Commissioner in that respect is misleading or incorrect. A bare perusal of Ex. AW2/1 read with the report of the Local Commissioner shows that there are three regular bed rooms on the ground floor besides the drawing-cum-dining room and the covered verandah at the back and the verandah in the front besides the lawns on both sides and drive-ways, two garages and two servant rooms above the garages. The criticism of the learned counsel for the respondent with regard to map Ex. AW2/1 is that one room shown as sitting room can be termed as a bed room. So, in all there are four bed rooms available to the petitioners and their family members and not three bed rooms. It is not out of place to mention here that in one of the garages the Local Commissioner found household goods storied which was the case of the petitioner that the household goods of petitioner No. 2 stand stored in the said garage. This fact has been found io be correct and in the objections nothing is brought out to show that ibis fact is wrong. Even the statement of AW2 on this aspect of the case remained unchallenged in the cross-examination. Local Commissioner found two domestic servants in the two rooms located above the garages. Counsel for the respondent with all his vehemence in arguments has urged that the wrong terminology has been used in describing the rooms which are regular rooms located above the two garages and they could be termed as rooms available for the residence of the landlords and their family members. Counsel for the respondent forgets that in the written statement the respondent herself has described said rooms as servant quarters. It is also on the face of it obvious that the two rooms constructed over the two garages are separate from the main building at the back and are meant to be used by domestic servants. It is also surprising how the Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that it is not proved that there are any servants kept by the petitioners when this fact was not at all challenged in cross-examination of AW1 & AW2. There was no evidence in rebuttal inasmuch as the defense of the respondent having been struck off, the respondent could not possibly lead any evidence in rebuttal farther in the written statement presence of a servant stood admitted. It was not the case of the respondent in the written statement that those servant rooms are meant for residence of the petitioners and their family members. It has also to be highlighted here that petitioner No. 1 as well as petitioner No. 2 are men of high social status. They have held very high positions in service and their way of living also makes it clear that they are accustomed to live in comfortable accommodations inasmuch as the statement of AW1 is that he and his wife from the very beginning have separate bed rooms. Status of the landlord does not go down by the mere fact that a landlord has retired from service. In the present case, even after retirement petitioner No. 1 has remained active in work and is director in about eight companies So, it cannot be held that turn the sake of keeping the tenant in the premises, petitioner No. 1 should forego his way of living and start living in one bed room with his wife and his wife should not have a separate bed room. As far as servant quarters are concerned, it was held in Parvin Sarin v. Mahabir Singh & others, 1981 (2) Rcj 12, by Sultan Singh, that even for the servant, who is living with the landlord, the landlord could desire to have more accommodation and that the servant quarters cannot be used by the landlords for their own living purposes. I entirely agree with this proposition enunciated in this judgment, in Ram Prakash Saroj v. Mohinder Singh, 1981 (1) Rcj 770 Sultan Singh, J. has held that the status of the landlord does not go down on his retirement from service.
(11) Now coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that there are actually four bed rooms available to the petitioners on the ground floor of the house, counsel for the respondent pointed out that in map Ex. AW2/1 sitting room shown in this map is a bed room when Local Commissioner went to the spot it was found that certain ward robes were placed in that room. But he forgets that this particular sitting room measuring 26' X 11.3' is not an independent room. In between this particular place and the living (drawing) room measuring 22' X 15', there is a flexible door and according to the objection petition filed by the respondent to the report of the Local Commissioner, there is a collapsible door. Be that as it may, the doors of two bed rooms, store, dining room and the drawing room, all open in that particular sitting room. Counsel for the petitioners was right in his contention that this particular space which is meant to be used as a sort of sitting room besides the drawing room cannot possibly be used as a comfortable bed room. If the flexible or collapsible door is removed it becomes part of the drawing room. Keeping in view the way of living of the petitioners and their social status and the number of the family members actually living in the said accommodation, which comprises of petitioner No, 1, his wife, petitioner No. 2, his wife and one unmarried grown up daughter, petitioner No. 1 and his wife need two bed rooms, petitioner No. 2 needs another bed room while the unmarried daughter also needs a separate bed room. So, the four bed rooms are the minimum requirement of the said family members living on the ground floor but petitioner No. 1 has another married son although living outside Delhi and one married daughter living in Delhi and petitioner No 2 also has a married son living outside Delhi and they come and stay for short periods and obviously one extra bed room is needed as guest room. Even otherwise petitioner No. 2 is holding a very high position in the railways and his statement that officials come to visit him quite often at bids residence also cannot be ignored with supports his need for additional room for that purpose. At any rate, for sleeping purposes the need of the petitioners and their family members is of five bed rooms while actually they have only three bed rooms. The Additional Rent Controller allowed himself to be totally misguided in assessing the basic need of the petitioners and their family members regarding the number of bed rooms. He tried to allot only one bed room to petitioner No. 1 and his wife which was wrong approach to the whole question of bonafide need of the petitioners keeping in view their social status and way of living.
(12) There is not an iota of evidence that the petitioners are actuated by any malafide motive in seeking eviction of the respondent. Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that at the time the eviction petition was filed, petitioner No. 2 admittedly was not living in Delhi and there was not an iota of inclination that he would be transferred to Delhi and so the initiation of the eviction petition was malafide. Counsel for the respondent is wrong in this respect because at the time the eviction petition was filed, one bed room and the back covered verandah were being used by daughter of petitioner No. 1 for running a school and the petitioners were expecting one grand-daughter and one grandson to join them as they were to join some colleges for higher education and so need was felt for initiating the eviction petition for getting more accommodation for the needs of the said children. At the time the Local Commissioner visited the spot, Vivek, grandson of petitioner No. 1, was found present and he stated to have taken employment now in a hotel. Even if we ignore the document produced by Vivek and given to the Local Commissioner showing bids having taken employment in the hotel even then with the change of circumstances i.e. transfer of petitioner No. 2 to Delhi and he and his family members having taken up residence in this house, the bonafide need for more accommodation felt by the petitioners has to be upheld. On the face of it the petitioners cannot be held to be in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation for residence. I am not giving any importance to the two ration-cards taken into possession by the Local Commissioner because the fact that petitioners have two servants remained unchallenged in cross-examination of AW1& AW2. The presence of servant was even admitted in the written statement. Assuming for the sake of arguments that petitioner has no domestic servants, even then the rooms meant for servants cannot be considered available to the petitioners and their family members for their residence. It is too much to ask the landlord to live in the servant quarters or ask his guests or family members to stay in the rooms meant for the servants.
(13) Counsel for the respondent has argued that as no proper map of the accommodation in possession of the petitioners was filed Along with the petition, the petitioners should be held to be guilty of concealment of actual accommodation and the petition should be thrown out on this score alone. There is no merit in this contention because in para 18 of the petition the accommodation available to the petitioner at that time was fully detailed out. It was no requirement of law that the petitioners should have filed any map of the accommodation in their possession or should have given measurements of the rooms in their possession. In Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Randhir Chandra Dutta, , the facts, in brief, were that the landlord bad not given the correct accommodation in his possession at the initial stages but trial Court bad appointed a Commissioner and obtained the report regarding the full accommodation available to the landlord in the house and thus, the landlord's claim was upheld. But in the High Court the eviction order was set aside holding that the landlord was guilty of concealment of accommodation. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court and it was held that there was no question of any concealment of accommodation by the landlord when the whole of the accommodation has been taken into consideration from the report of the Local Commissioner. So, in the present case also the whole of the accommodation now available to the landlord has been brought home in the map Ex. AW2/1 and trial Court was completely wrong in ignoring the said map Ex. AW2/1 when the said document has been proved and exhibited without any objection. The later objection raised by the respondent's counsel on another date was of no consequence. At any rate, the Local Commissioner, appointed by me with the agreement of counsel for the parties, has also found that map to be correct. Even in the objections filed by the respondent nothing was brought out to show any incorrectness in the said map. So, nothing turns on this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent.
(14) Counsel for the respondent also referred to Civil Revision No. 876/86, Harish Chander Kalia v. Sat Pal, Oberoi, decided by this Court on 13th January 1988. I have gone through that judgment and found that it was on different facts completely. The claim of the landlord in that case was found to be malafide as landlord after getting an eviction order against a particular tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement failed to utilise that accommodation for residential purposes and had brought eviction petition against another tenant on the similar ground. The bonafide need of a particular landlord depends on peculiar facts and circumstances appearing in the case. There could not be any hard and fast rules as to how much accommodation would be suitable for a particular landlord. In order to assess the bonafide need of the landlord for more accommodation, the Court has to keep in view the social status of a particular landlord, his way of living, the number of family members living with the landlord and the accommodation already available with the landlord and bids family members. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that in the eviction petition the petitioners did not clarify that Mrs. Rajni. daughter of petitioner No. 1, was running a school in one of the bed rooms and back covered verandah. That accommodation which was in possession of Mrs. Rajni was not available to the petitioners and their family members. So, the omission of the petitioners to make reference to the said accommodation cannot be considered malafide because the petitioners were only required to show the accommodation actually in their possession in order to show whether the said accommodation was reasonably suitable for their needs or not. Later on, Mrs. Rajni admittedly has stopped using that accommodation for her school and that accommodation has come into possession of the petitioners and their family members and has been taken due notice of while assessing the bonafide need of the petitioners for more accommodation.
(15) So, examining the case from any angle, firm of the firm view that the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller cannot be sustained as it suffers from grave illegality inasmuch as he had not bothered to appraise the evidence properly and had based his judgment on wrong facts and had not given any consideration to the social status of the petitioners and their way of living.
(16) I hence, allow the civil revision and set aside the impugned judgment and pass the eviction order against the respondent and grant six months time to the respondent for vacating the premises. The petitioners shall have their costs throughout from the respondent. Counsel Fee Rs. 1000/.