Delhi High Court
Amrit Lal vs Jagpal Singh Verma on 25 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: 63(1996)DLT621, 1996RLR392, 1997 A I H C 634, (1997) 2 RENCJ 355, (1996) 2 RENCR 354, (1997) 1 RENTLR 63, (1996) 63 DLT 621
Author: S.N. Kapoor
Bench: S.N. Kapoor
JUDGMENT S.N. Kapoor, J.
(1) This revision petition has been filed against an order of dismissal of eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act.
(2) The facts giving an occasion to the present revision petition are as under: Undisputedly, the respondent is tenant of the petitioner in respect of two rooms, one kitchen, one bath and front and back covered portico, garage on the ground (3) The matter was hotly contested before the learned Trialourt. The learned Additional Rent Controller took the view that the petitioner was the owner/ landlord of the suit premises; and the premises was let out for residential purpose. However, the learned Additional Rent Controller took the view that the petitioner had failed to prove that he bona fide required the suit premises and dismissed the eviction petition.
(4) Feeling aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed on the ground that the evidence had not been seen in the light of proper perspective. The learned Additional Rent Controller failed to take note of the evidence of the respondent about the extent of accommodation available with the petitioner. The learned Additional Rent Controller also failed to take into consideration the growing need of a growing family. And it had been wrongly held that the petition was moved with mala fide intentions and due to extraneous considerations. Hence the revision petition.
(5) I have gone through the record of the learned Trial Court as well as the revision petition. Before proceeding further let us see the provisions under Section 25B(8) of Section 25 of the Drc Act which empowers the High Court to call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto. Sub Section (8) of Section 25B of the Drc Act reads as under :- "NO appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this Section: Provided that the High Court may for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit."
(6) In S.K.Gupta and Another v. R.C.Jain scope of revision under Sub-section (8) of Section 25B of the Drc Act, as distinct from scope of revision under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code was considered in the light of judgment in Jagatjit Industries Limited v. Rajiv Gupta, (1980 18 Dlt 34 and following observations were made in para 37 at page 198: "........THE revisional jurisdiction u/S. 25B(8) of the Act is wider than under Section 115 of the Civil P.C. The High Court under this provision has power to reverse the finding which is perverse, contrary to evidence or based on no evidence. The phrase 'according to law' in Section 25B(8) of the Act refers to the decision as a whole, and is not to be equated to error of law or of fact simpliciter. It refers to the overall decision which must be according to law which it would not be, if there is a miscarriage of justice due to a mistake of law. These observations were made by the Supreme Court in Harishankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chaudhry, Air 1963 Sc 698 while interpreting Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, a provision similar to Section 25B(8) of the Act. Similar observations were also made in Pooran Chand v. Moti Lal, and Kewal Singh v. Mst. Lajwattti, ."
(7) In the light of the above, two points mentioned earlier are required to be considered. So far as purpose of letting the premises is concerned, learned Additional Rent Controller, after considering the evidence on record and arguments has given a reasoned finding. I do not see any reason to interfere with that finding.
(8) Coming to the question of bona fide requirement of the petitioner, the first point which arises in this connection is the accommodation available to the petitioner. The learned Additional Rent Controller has taken the view that the petitioner has failed to prove that the petitioner had only one room, it may be mentioned that RW-2 Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh a witness of the respondent/tenant admitted that the front room which he was talking about was a verandah and the same had been converted into a room. It also appears from the cross-examination of the RW-1 Jagpal Singh that size of this room was about 8' x 8'. Therefore it could not be said that the petitioner was having two rooms. It is apparent that a verandah has been given some shape to provide some kind of shelter.
(9) Learned Additional Rent Controller has also taken the view that as the site plan was not filed, the petitioner failed to prove the accommodation in his occupation. In this regard it is notable that it is not at all the requirement of law that site plan must be filed if the accommodation could be clearly made out otherwise. (See K.B.Mathur And Another v. Sardar Bhagwanti Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. ) Therefore this could not be a ground to say that the petitioner did not bona fide require the premises.
(10) The next point which is required to be seen is the size of the family. According to the petition the family of the petitioner was comprised of the petitioner himself, his wife and one child. When he came in the witness box he stated that in his family apart from himself and his wife, he had three children on 1.5.1984. The matter was disposed of on 19.2.1985. The petitioner was 33 years of age on 1.5.1984, as per his statement. Even at the time of deciding the matter the eldest child was nine years of age and he could not be allowed to sleep in the same room where the parents were sleeping. Now he would be about 45 years of age. His children are also by now grown up children who could not sleep with parents. These subsequent events are required to be taken care of. If any authority is needed one may refer to Anand Gopal Jhingran & Ors. v. Shri Arjun Dev, . In para 9 the Single Bench of this Court observed as under:- "AS held by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Variety Emporium v. V.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina, , the Court must have regard to events as they present themselves at the time when it is hearing the proceeding before it and mould the relief in the light of those events. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the requirement of the appellants for the suit premises is bona fide and their appeal has to be accepted."
Consequently I am supposed to take into consideration the growing requirement of a growing family.
(11) It may be noted that in this case the husband as well as wife both are employed and they would need accommodation according to their status. In the premises in suit atleast there are two rooms; one kitchen, one bath, one Wc and front and back covered portico with a garage on the ground floor.
(12) If he let out the premises under Section 21 of the Drc Act initially it should not adversely affect the claim of the petitioner, in view of the fact that financial stringencies forced some times Government employees to let out these premises to meet the exigencies of the time, while they intend to live in their own premises later on.
(13) As it is now evident that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the premises in question; the premises were let out for residential purpose; he requires the premises bona fide for occupation as a residence for himself and for other members of family dependent upon him and he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation, he is entitled to evict the respondent/tenant from the premises under Clause 14(1)(e) of the Drc Act but not before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of this order. Accordingly the impugned order dated 19.2.1985 rejecting eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Drc Act, is set aside and the respondent is directed to vacate the premises within a period of six months from the date of this order under Section 14(1)(e) read with Sub-section (7) of Section 14 of the Drc Act. In peculiar circumstances of the matter, both the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Additional Rent Controller through learned Rent Control Tribunal for information alongwith the record of the Court of the learned Additional Rent Controller as expeditiously as possible.