RANJAN GUPTA Vs. A F FERGUSON AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the owner-landlord is directed against the order dated 9.2.1989 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, whereby his petition under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed.

(2.) Though the petition has not been formally admitted but I have looked into the entire record and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length at the admission stage itself. The petitioner is the owner landlord of premises No. 56-B; Friends Colony, New Delhi. First floor of the premises was let out to the respondent company. Originally the petition was filed on the ground that the ground floor of the premises which was in occupation of the petitioner was occupied by his mother and his sister and her daughter. It was alleged that the sister had been deserted by her husband and therefore was dependants on the petitioner for residence. It was pleaded that the petitioner was enjoying a very high status and in addition to his business at Ludhiana lie was having a business at Delhi and wanted to shift to Delhi. It was further pleaded that he being of a very high status could not live on the ground floor where his mother and sister and her daughter are living and therefore his requirement for the first floor was bona fide. It is not necessary to go into the details regarding the requirements pleaded in the petition because there has been a substantial change during the pendency of the petition - itself. By now admittedly the sister of the petitioner has got re-married -and is happily settled with her husband. The petitioner who himself was unmarried at the time when he had instituted the eviction petition has got married and is having two minor-children. Thus, at present the requirement is of the petitioner, his wife, two minor children and the mother of the petitioner.

(3.) The arguments were addressed at length on the question as to whether the petitioner had shifted to Delhi or not. It is true that at the time when the petition was filed or till 1988 it was only a desire of the petitioner to shift to Delhi. According to the petitioner he has in fact shifted prior to 1988 though from the evidence of his sister and even from his own statement it cannot be spelt out that he had shifted to Delhi prior to 1988. In any case I am of the view that actual shifting is not necessary as long as the desire to shift is bona fide. The petitioner admittedly has his business at Delhi also. His children are now admitted in a school at Delhi and, therefore, it cannot be said that the desire of the petitioner to shift is not bona fide. Thus, I have proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner has shifted to Delhi.