BULAKI DASS Vs. SURAJ BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Bulaki Dass, petitioner in both the above mentioned revision petitions which are directed against order dated 13th April, 1979, of an Additional Rent Controller, dismissing his petition for the eviction of his tenants, Sh. Suraj Bhan and Sh. Ram Rattan, is the owner-landlord of property bearing municipal No. 1935, Katra Kushal Rai, Kinari Bazar, Delhi.

(2.) This is a three-storeyed building. Besides that there is barsati floor and a mezzanine (dochhatti). The whole of the building is in the occupation of the petitioner-landlord and members of his family who are living with him in it excepting two small portions which are in the tenancy of the tenants Shri Suraj Bhan and Shri Ram Rattan. The demised premises with Shri Suraj Bhan compromises one room and a store with Kolki on the ground floor and a big room on the second floor with common bath and latrins as shown red in the siteplan Ex. All. One room and a kitchen on the second floor and store on the ground floor as shown green in the site-plan All with common bath and latrine constitute the tenanted portion of Shri Ram Rattan. In June 1977, the petitioner-landlord instituted eviction proceedings against both these tenants, being E-273/77 and E-274/77 on the ground of personal bona fide necessity. He, inter alia, alleged that the existing accommodation in his occupation was not reasonably suitable, being insufficient for him and members of his family which was fairly large and as such he was in bona fide need of the demised premises. He also asserted that he was having an income of Rs. 27.000.00 per annum from his business and as such he was assessed to income-tax. Further his sons had an income of about Rs. 4.000.00 each per annum.

(3.) Both the eviction petitions were naturally contested by the tenants who asserted that the alleged requirement of the landlord was not bona fide inasmuch as the accommodation already in his occupation was quite sufficient for himself and members of his family. They pointed out that the landlord had not explained as to how the existing accommodation was not reasonably suitable for him and his family members.