GIRDHARI LAL Vs. LAXMI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order of the Rent Controller, by which he allowed the landlord's application for eviction filed under Sec. 14(1)(e) read with Sec. 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (to be called the Act) on the ground of bona fide need. It was alleged that the respondent/landlord had a large family of 7 members and has only one store on the ground floor and complete first floor and barsati with his which was insufficient for his need and there was no other reasonably suitable accommodation with him. Hence eviction petition.

(2.) The petitioner/tenant apart from traversing other grounds which Included that the premises were not residential but were let out both for residential and non-residential. specifically pleaded that the landlord had 9 spacious vacant rooms in his possession for the use aid occupation of himself and his family members' requirements. The plan Ex. AN-2/1 showed the red portion in occupation of the petitioner/tenant and the yellow In occupation of the landlord. The plan was proved by Mr. G.K. Nigam, AN-2. From the plan it appears that in the ground floor there are two rooms marked A & B. The tenant wanted to have them included in the possession of the landlord The Rent Controller has however. found and I have no reason not to accept that finding that these two rooms are with the brother of the tenant on is rental of Rs. 1250.00 per month for a number of years. So apparently that accommodation cannot be said to be available wan the landlord.

(3.) The Rent Controller however, did not accept fully the statement of the landlord with regard to the accommodation with him. The landlord had claimed that he had only about 2 rooms. But the rent Controller has instead held that there are 4 rooms and one store available with the landlord but the same are still not sufficient considering the number of landlords' family members. The Rent Controller has calculated four rooms by treating the room on the ground floor, which has been shown as store in the plan) as a room and a Kotha on the first floor (also as a room) making a total of four rooms. The other 2 rooms (to make it Lour) I take it he must have included the room 'B' on the first floor and the barsati which was specifically admitted by the landlord to be with him. But the Rent Controller has ignored and omitted to refer to an important admission by the landlord that portion shown as verandah in the plan Ex. AN-2/1 is in fact a room adjacent to room 'E'. This serious omission has resulted in showing less accommodation with the landlord, obviously causing infirmity in the judgment. On landlord's own showing, therefore, this extra room is available with him which would atleast make it 5 rooms. A further suggestion was given to the landlord that the kitchen which seems apparently quite a big one being 163 X 98' was really a room and was wrongly shown as kitchen. This suggestion was of course denied by the landlord. One thing however, appears to at Ike one when you look at the plan is that the first floor is almost an identical replica of the ground fact accommodation and portion as is usual in the double storey houses. In the plan in the ground floor, below the kitchen on the first floor is shown as a room in possession of the petitioner/tenant. The dimensions of the said room are almost the same as on the first floor portion and which landlord claims to be kitchen. It appears to true that apart from the fact that the accommodation now found by me to be with the respondent more than the one on the basis of which the Rent Controller decided in his favour, tie question whether such a big portion on the first floor make as 'X' constitute only a kitchen or is in fact a room has not been examined by the Rent Controller as it should have been It seems to me that a serious lacuna has arisen in the matter of finding whether the need of the landlord is genuine by the Rent Controller not having applies' his mind to this aspect. In the circumstances I find that as the Rent Controller has ignored the admitted evidence which showed an Increase of the accommodation with the landlord, the only course open to this court is to set it aside and to remit it back to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision in the light of this situation. I am doing this because Mr. Bhargava had strongly urged that once it is found that admittedly there was accommodation than the one on the basis of which Rent Controller passed an eviction older he could show that there was sufficient accommodation to suit the genuine need of She respondent/landlord. But I am afraid I cannot examine this matter. In these proceedings, because in the first instance, the jurisdiction to find the bonafide need is with the Rent Controller. That is why I feel it would be proper course to remit the matter back to the Rent Controller.