V P SAXENA Vs. AVINASH CHANDER BHASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Revision Petition the Judgment dated 27/2/1992 of the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the'ARC') has been called into question. An eviction petition had been filed in 1998 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act'). The ARC has found in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the fact that the Petitioner is the owner of the demised property; that a relationship of Landlord and Tenant existed between the Petitioner and Respondent; and that the premises have been let for residential purpose only. On the crucial question of whether the Petitioner requires the premises bona fide for its personal use, the ARC was not satisfied at all with the pleaded case and has dismissed the eviction petition. Although, Learned Counsel for the Respondent attempted to assail the findings of the ARC on the issues decided in the Petitioner's favour, I have declined to hear him in this regard for the reason that no Cross-Objection have been filed by the Respondent/Tenant, In this respect Mr. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Respondent had at once conceded. Accordingly, arguments were restricted to the question of the bona fide requirement' of the Petitioner had been proved.

(2.) The Petitioner HUE, at the time when the Petition was filed, consisted of himself and his wife, three daughters, one son and the mother of Shri V.P. Saxena. To this extent there is no dispute between the parties. In the petition, at first, it had been stated that accommodation is required for the Petitioner's "younger brother Pradeep Saxena, studying in B.A. First Year who is also dependent both for residence and finance upon the Petitioner due to the sudden demise of the father of the Petitioner." This has been very artfully drafted so as to give the impression that the father of Pradeep Saxena and V.P. Saxena are one and the same person. However, if should be recalled that the Petitioner in the present proceedings is an HUF. In the reply the Respondent/Tenant had stated that Pradeep Saxena was not the brother of,Shri V.P. Saxena, Karta of the Petitioner Hindu Undivided Family. Thereupon in the first amendment, it had been pleaded that "even though the said Pradeep Saxena is not the real brother of the Petitioner but he has always been treated as real brother by the Petitioner and as a son by the father of the Petitioner......" In order to demonstrate bonafides, a clean breast should have been made at the very beginning. In his Statement-in-Chief Pradeep Saxena deposed that he was living with his elder brother along with his wife and two children. In Cross-examination he has admitted that he had passed his Matriculation examination from Ambala in 1979, and that he has undergone his entire school education from that city. He has further deposed that he was living with his real elder sister in Ambala; that he has no bank account in Delhii that till about 1980 he was registered as a voter in Ambala; that he did not know about other residents in the locality except for one Mr. Narula; that he had never attended any wedding in the neighbourhood. All these factors were kept in the mind of ARC when he refused to accept the Petitioner's version and claim ae to the need of this Pradeep Saxena. Even if I had arrived at contrary conclusion, which I may emphatically state 'I do not, it would not be justified for me to set aside the findings of the ARC on this issue since no jurisdictional error has been committed. However, since I am in agreement with the findings, it is also necessary to underscore that it is difficult to accept that where a Petitioner makes false pleadings, his 'bona fides' should be accepted. Although, it is not an inflexible approach, where a Petitioner has exemplified hie willingness to plead falsehood, the Court would be fully Justified in viewing his testimony with considerable reservation and doubt, and tainted even on other issues. There is a discernable distinction between overstating a case, and pleading a false case; an exaggeration, as in the former, may not be fatal.

(3.) It is also not disputed that the Petitioner had let out the Ground Floor of the premises to a tenant in 1977 under Section 21 of the DRC Act. At that time the First Floor was occupied by a Tenant named Chander Mohan and the Second Floor was in the possession of the Respondent. The ground given by the Tenant for justifying the grant of a 'limited tenancy' was that he Purnima Saxena who is stated to have been estranged from her husband. The claim, however, for a separate room for the child of the Petitioner's son, and a separate bed-room for the daughter of Purnima Saxena is not bona fide and not in line and commensurate with the family life-style in Sitaram Bazar. For a family with limited income, it cannot be appreciated and accepted that they would genuinely require separate bed-rooms for each of the children. There is no Justifiable reason as to why the daughter Purnima Saxena cannot share a bed-room along with her motherland/or with her cousin of tender years. No doubt, the Petitioner is the person who must be the best judge of his residential needs, but when the Court finds the case pleaded as wholly incredible, it is not helplessly bound to accept the professed need as genuine. A realistic approach has to be taken where the family had been accustomed to living in a one-room set in Sitaram Bazar in Old Delhi. It cannot be believed that suddenly each member of the family requires their own bed-rooms. The family has not been visited with sudden wealth or surged income as would explain and Justify such an opulent life-style for the Petitioner's need to escalate and expand from this one room set to not just the entire ground floor, but also the entire first floor as well as second floor is too much to swallow. The entire Petition discloses mala fides.