R B KAPOOR Vs. MANIK N DASTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The ground floor premises consisting of two bed rooms one drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen, W C. and servant quarter over the garrage of property no. 126 Jor Bagh, New Delhi were let out to the respondent on 7.11.1968 by the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 750.00 for purely residential purpose. The petitioner was employed as Assistant Controller of Defence Accounts at that time. A petition for eviction was filed by the petitioner on 29.11.1979 on the ground of bona fide personal need of the petitioner for himself and his family members dependant upon him. It was submitted in the said eviction petition that at that time the petitioner was posted at Meerut, his son was studying in Modern School, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi in 9th class. It was stated that on account of the petitioner and his family being out of Delhi, the education of the son of the petitioner had suffered due to absence of supervision and guidance. The petitioner, therefore, submitted that he wanted to shift his family from Meerut to live in the demised premises where the son of the petitioner would shift so that proper supervision and guidance can be provided. An application for leave to defend was filed by the respondent and it was contended that the premises were taken for composite purpose for residence cum business and the respondent was running his office at the said premises. He further stated that in November 1968 when the respondent took the premises on the ground floor on rent. the first floor was in occupation of United Nations Organisations and an American couple was occupying the same. However, the said premises fell vacant in June/ July 1974 and the said premises were rented out to one Shri Vishnu Dutt at a rental of Rs.1200.00 Per month. The respandent however contended that the petitioner is housed in a big bungalow st Meerut where he was living with his wife and children and that the other children of the petitioner were staying at Meerut and the excuse given by the petitioner regarding the education of his son who is studying in Modern School is a lame excuse given by the petitioner to get the premises in occupation of the respondent vacated. It was further submitted that the son of the petitioner was studying in the Modern School and was in the hostel for the last four years since the age of 10 years and now at the age of 15 years there was no reason why such a grown up boy studying in 9th class should not continue to stay in the hostel.

(2.) A reply was filed by the petitioner to the said application for leave to defend and he denied the allegations made by the respondent. The Rent Controller by his order dated 28.2.1980 refused leave to defend to the respondent and ordered eviction of the respondent from the ground floor of the demised premises but gave six months time to the respondent to vacate the premises.

(3.) The respondent filed a revision petition (C.R. 480/1980) against the said order in this court and leave was granted to the respondent to defend the eviction petition. This Court while allowing the revision petition of the respondent allowed the petitioner to amend the petition incorporating subsequent events before the Rent Controller the parties were directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 14.4.1981 and accordingly the petitioner moved an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the said application the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the eviction petition in the High Court the petitioner had been transferred back to Delhi and before he was transferred his family had already shifted and taken on rent barsati room at R-652 New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi with effect from 1st September 1980 at a rental of Rs. 700.00 per month. It was submitted that the petitioner believed that the respondent would vacate the premises in terms of the order of the Rent Controller dated 2821980 after the expiry of six months i.e. on 28th August 1980 and thus the petitioner anticipating that he will get the accommodation withdrew his son from the hostel ana for a temporary period took the barsati room in New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi on rent. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also been transferred to Delhi in January 1981. It was not possible for the petitioner to get allotment of government accommodation immediately and the existing accommodation of a barsati room at New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi was not adequate for the requirement of the petitioner and that of his family members. He, therefore, prayed for urgent eviction of the respondent. The application for amendment was allowed and accordingly the petitioner filed an amended petition on 14.4.1981. The respondent filed a written statement in reply to the amended petition and same objections as in the application for leave to defend were raised by the respondent in the said written statement. The respondent contended that the additional ground was only an after-thought and the petitioner was not entitled to get the respondent evicted from the premises. On 13.7.1981 the petitioner once again filed another application under Order 7 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure bringing certain further events on record. It was submitted that during the pendency of the revision petition in the High Court and at the time of the filing of the replication the petitioner was living in the barsati room at R-562 New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, however the petitioner was required to vacate the said accommodation on account of inadequacy of accommodation and had, therefore, shifted to 3/30 (First Floor), East Patel Nagar, New Delhi with effect from 1.6.1981 at a rental of Rs. 1050.00 per month. Thus, the petitioner was now in possession of rental accommodation consisting of one drawing cum dining room, 2 bed rooms besides kitchen, bath etc. This application of the petitioner was also allowed.