P C BHANDARI Vs. CALTEX (INDIA) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, P.C. Bhandari, is the owner and landlord of a house, being No. 45, Golf Links, New Delhi. On July 27, 1954, the said house was leased to the respondent company, Caltex (India) Limited, New Delhi, at Rs. 1400/- per month as rent. On May, 5, 1960 an eviction application was filed against the respondent-tenant under clause (d) of the proviso to section 14(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the ground that the first and the barsati floors of the house were required bonafide by the appellant for his and his family residence, and that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. On October 21, 1960 an eviction order was passed and possession of the first and the barsati floors was obtained by the appellant-landlord. The appellant undertook same renovation in the said accommodation, which continued for a considerable time and therefore, the said floors were occupied by the appellant himself; although according to the respondent, the said accommodation was being used by the appellant as and when he was in Delhi. In any case, the same has not been let out to any one, and still is with the appellant. Sometime in 1965, the appellant demanded the possession of the ground floor from the respondent, but without any result. In March 1965, the present eviction petition was filed again on the ground covered by clause (e) of the proviso to section 14(l), namely that the premises (ground floor) were let for residence, and were required bonafide by the appellant for occupation as a residence for himself and his family and that he had no other reasonably suitable residence. On November 15, 1967, the Controller dismissed the appellant's petition. The Tribunal by its order dated April 14, 1969 concurred with the Controller and dismissed the appeal. The appellant under these circumstances has come up to this court in second appeal.

(2.) The case of the appellant is that at the time he let the whole house to the respondent-company, he himself resided at Kanpur, where he was carrying on business since 1951. He occupied in Kanpur, a commodious house, consisting of a drawing-cum-dining room, four bed rooms and a lawn of the size 120'x40'. His children then were of tender ages. At the time he brought his first eviction petition, he proposed to discontinue his business in Kanpur and bonafide required a part of the house for occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family. In the witness box in the earlier case, he stated that his business at Kanpur had come to an end, that he had shifted to Delhi, where he had restarted his business of import of chemicals and fertilizers and that he had purchased land in Delhi for Rs. 72,000/- for constructing a factory for the manufacture of tents and carpets. Under these circumstances, he obtained an order of eviction against the respondent-company in respect of the first and the barsati floors in 1960. As far as the barsati was concerned it was handed over to his brother for some time, but the first floor throughout has admittedly remained in his possession and has never been let out or given over to any one else. According to the appellant, his ordinary place of business and residence are now in New Delhi, the Managing Director of Messrs P.C. Bhandari and Company Private Limited, with its registered head office in the first floor of the suit premises. His business consists of supply to the Defence Department of the Government of India, export from India spinning and manufacture of woollen carpets, for which he had constructed a factory at a distance of about six miles from Delhi, on Delhi-Ghaziabad Road. Part of the factory building has already been constructed and some portions have yet to be completed. He paid Income-tax to the extent of Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 75000/- per annum and received foreign visitors in connection with his business. He has to entertain his business friends and associates and badly required the premises in dispute for that purpose also, more especially as there was hardly any space available in the accommodation already with him for entertaining and accommodating his guests. He was in need of the lawn on the ground floor also. The respondent, on the other hand, made out a case that the appellant's ordinary and permanent place of business was not at Delhi, but at Kanpur. According to the respondent, he had not even occupied the first and the barsati floors of the house.

(3.) The Tribunal came to the conclusion that it would be "justified in holding that the appellants' permanent and ordinary place of business is at Kanpur, where he has undisputably a reasonably suitable residential accommodation and that he has yet no substantial business at Delhi." This conclusion was reached as the Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant was really serious in shifting his business from Kanpur to Delhi The appellant while making his statement on September 16, 1960 in the previous case has stated that he had no more orders in hand in Kanpur and had closed down his factory there in November 1959, that he had shifted over to Delhi, where he had restarted his business and that although he still has an office at Kanpur he had no business there. The factory proposed to be set up in Delhi for manufacture of tents, etc. had begun to be constructed and the machinery had been trans shipped from Kanpur. The Tribunal found that on January 16, 1966 in the present proceedings, the appellant had not produced his accounts books, which could show that he was closing his business at Kanpur and that he was starting his business in Delhi. From this the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had no intention of discontinuing his business at Kanpur.