NARAIN DAS Vs. KRISHAN LAL LONGANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the landlord under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') challenging the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 23rd November, 1977 reversing the order of eviction passed by the Controller under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act. The appellant is the owner of a building F-79, Lajpat Nagar-I New Delhi on a plot of land measuring about 200 sq. yards. The respondent is a tenant in a flat consisting of two rooms, kitchen, bath and latrine located on the ground floor of the said property at a monthly rent of Rs 260.00 . The premises were let to him in July, 1969. The entire property has four similar flats i. e. two flats on the ground floor and two on the first floor. In the other flat on the ground floor the landlord and his family have been residing. The two flats on the first floor have been in occupation of the tenants. There has been change of tenants in the flats on the first floor from time to time. The eviction petition out of which this appeal has arisen was filed on 3rd October, 1972. The only dispute in this appeal is whether the premises in question are required bona fide by the appellant for occupation as a residence for himself and for members of his family.. It is not disputed that the premises were let for residential purposes and the appellant is the owner thereof. It has also been held both by the Tribunal and the Controller that the flats on the first floor as compared with the premises in suit under the tenancy of the respondent are not suitable for the appellant and his femily members.

(2.) The family of the appellant admittedly consists of himself, his wife, seven grown up daughters and an ailing mother. All the daughters were unmarried when the eviction petition was filed. It is now admitted at the bar that three daughters have since been married. It is however submitted on behalf of the appellant that one of the married daughters is staying with the parents-on account other strained relations with her in-laws which is disputed by the respondent. In any case, the question for consideration still remains whether the premises are required bona fide by the appellant. The Tribunal held appellant's requirement not to be bona fide on the ground that he let out one of the flats on the first floor prior to the filing of the eviction petition and again he let out flats on the first floor which fell vacant during the pendency of the eviction proceedings. It is admitted that one of the flats on the first floor fell vacant a few months prior to the filing of the eviction petition and the same along with one room on first floor in possession of the appellant was offered to the respondent. This flat on first floor is just above the dispted flat and identical. It was offered to him without any increase in rent but the respondent did not accept the offer. It is also admitted that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings when the flat on first floor fell vacant it was offered to the respondent and again he did not accept the offer. The offers by the appellant to the respondent to occuy the flat on the first floor and his refusal to accept the same in the circumstances of this case goes to show the bona fide requirement of the appellant. The Tribunal has observed that the appellant with a view to earn rental income has been letting out the flats on first floor at the cost of having insufficient accommodation with him, that he has not placed on record any material to show improvement in his financial status which could prompt him to sacrifice the rental income and use the accommodation for his comfortable living. The Tribunal further says that the appellants needs more income for maintaining himself, for performing, the marriages of his grown up daughters, and there has been no change in the number of family members since the time of the letting of the premises. On these facts, the Tribunal held that the appellant has failed to prove his bona fide requirement.

(3.) This is second appeal. The Supreme Court in Mattulal v. Radhe Lal, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1596 has observed :