VIR BHAN Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the order dated September 4, 1968, of the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, who accepting the respondent's appeal, set aside the judgment dated January 25, 1967 of the Additional Controller and directed that the appellant shall be evicted from the premises in dispute under section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 'herein called 'the Act.

(2.) Balwant Singh, the owner landlord-respondent in this appeal, is a retired Government servant and has been living in Gurgaon with two of his sons, who have taken a house on rent. The third son is said to be living separately in Gurgaon also in a rented house. The house in dispute in Delhi was purchased by the respondent and he wants to shift his residence here in this house. He has stated that all his relations live in Delhi and therefore, he wants to live in his own house also in Delhi. He has stated that the two sons. who live with him in Gurgaon are also desirous of shifting to Delhi. It is under these circumstances that he filed this application for ejectment of the appellant from the residential premises in dispute on the ground that the same was required bonafide by him for occupation as a residence for himself and his family members dependent on him. He stated that he has no other accommodation in his possession to which he could shift. The learned Additional Controller did not believe his version and dismissed his ejectment petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs. In appeal, the learned Rent Control Tribunal accepting the respondent's appeal, set aside the judgment of the Additional Controller and directed, as stated above that the respondent be evicted from the premises in dispute. The tenant feeling aggrieved by the said order has come up in second appeal to this court.

(3.) The only question which now requires determination is whether the premises in dispute are required bonafide by the respondent for occupation as a residence for himself or for the members of his family dependent on him. It is now well settled that bonafide requirements of the landlord means that his need for the premises in question is reasonable, genuine and honest and not a mere subterfuge to achieve some ends other than those which will meet his aforesaid personal requirements; and that his claim is not tainted with any collateral or oblique motives. It is not necessary to refer to the various judgments cited by the learned counsel as the matter is now concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kamla Soni v. Rooplal Mehra, 1969 RCR(Rent) 1017 where it was held that "in determining whether the claim is bonafide the court is entitled and in need bound to consider whether it is reasonable. A claim founded on abnormal predilections of the landlord may not be regarded as bonafide. The mere assertion that the landlord requires the premises occupied by the tenant for his personal occupation was considered not to be decisive. All the circumstances of the case have to be taken into consideration and it is then that the requirements of the landlord can be determined to be bonafide or otherwise. The mere assertion by the landlord may not be accepted as final; but all the some his statement on oath has to be given proper weight and has to be judged in the light of the prevailing circumstances. It is only then that it can be decided whether the claim put forward by him is genuine and honest.