D N GUPTA Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Controller dated 30th September, 1980 dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to defend and passing an order of eviction against him. Briefly the facts are that Jaswant Singh is the owner of the property No. 8-10, Nizamuddin (West), New Delhi. First floor of this property was let out in 1974 to Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. of which the petitioner, D. N. Gupta was Deputy Personal Manager and he was in occupation of the premises on behalf of the company. He retired in 1978. The respondent accepted the petitioner as a tenant in his own right on the first floor of the said property with effect from 1st July, 1978 in terms of a rent note for a fixed period of 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs. 600.00 . The petitioner renewed the tenancy for further period of II months by executing another rent note dated 1st June, 1979. The petitioner alleges that there were negotiations for renewal of tenancy in May, 1980, but they did not materialise. On 15th May, 1980 the respondent served a notice of eviction requiring the petitioner to vacate. The petitioner on 25th June, 1980 filed an application for fixation of standard rent. On 8th July, 1980 the respondent filed the eviction application under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act, alleging that he was the owner of the premises, that the first floor of the said property was let for residence, that he was in occupation of the ground floor comprising two bed rooms, a prayer room, ore drawing cum-dining room, kitchen, latrine, bath and verandah with his two married sons and that his third married son was residing in Barsati floor comprising one room only, that the premises were less and insufficient for him and for members of his family consisting of himself, his wife, his married son lqbal Singh with three children, his married son Ravinder Pal Singh with two children residing on the ground floor and his son Amrik Singh with five children residing in the Barsati floor. He also alleges that the sons were dependent upon him so far as the residential accommodation was concerned, that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in Delhi or anywhere else, that he has a married daughter with two sons, who often visit him. The petitioner filed an application for leave to defend supported by a detailed affidavit. The Rent Controller dismissed the application for leave to defend and passed an order of eviction. Hence this revision petition under Section 25B (8) of the Act.

(2.) The short question for determination is : Whether the petitioner in his affidavit has disclosed facts which would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises. The petitioner-tenant in his affidavit has deposed that the respondent-landlord has been in occupation of the ground floor with the families of his two married sons lqbal Singh and Ravinder Pal Singh, that the second floor has been in occupation of his eldest son Amrik Singh independently along with his wife and children, that on the expiry of the fixed period of II months in terms of the rent note, negotiations for renewal took place in the first week of May, 1980 when the respondent sent a draft of a rent note which was not acceptable to him. The two conditions which were not acceptable were that he had realised the bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlord and that he would vacate the premises positively by 31st March, 1981. The parties could not arrive at an amicable settlement and therefore the respondent sent the lawyer's notice dated 15th May, 1980 requiring him to vacate the premises, that he filed an eviction application for fixation of standard rent on 25th June, 1980 that his tenancy started from 1st July, 1978 which was renewed by another rent agreement dated 1st June, 1979. As regards existing accommodation with the respondent- landlord he stated, "The ground floor comprises of 2 bed rooms, one drawing- cum-dining room, one kitchen converted into a prayer room, one big kitchen additionally built in the courtyard, one front verandah fully covered and used as third bedroom, one big back verandah fully closed and used as a full-fledged room, bath, lavatory and front and back courtyards. The description given by the petitioner in his application is not complete. Similarly, the accommodation at the second floor consists of one large room, one small room kitchen, bath and latrine, big open terrace a portion of which is now covered by temporary structure". The petitioner has further alleged that the alleged need of (he respondent is not genuine, that his statement that he has a big family consisting of 18 members is not true, that he wants to rent out the premises occupied by him after getting the same vacated at a higher rent, that the premises were let on 1st, July, 1978 and since then there has been no change in the circumstances and as such the alleged requirement is not bona fide, that Amrik Singh, eldest son of the respondent is employed in Auto-Pins Factory at Faridabad on a good salary whose employer has provided him with a scooter, that his wife has been an insurance agent and makes a good addition to the family income, that he is said to be owning a plot of land for building a house, that he is the head of the family of seven persons holding ration card No. 94878, that he has been maintaining a separate establishment and that in these circumstances he is an independent and self-supporting family and that he is not dependent upon the respondent needing accommodation. As regards his second married son lqbal Singh, he has alleged that he is living on the ground floor as an independent head of separate family with his own ration card No. 94877, that he has been doing agency business from which there is lucrative return, that he constructed a Bungalow No. A-125, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and let out the same at Rs. 4000.00 per month in March, 1980, that in the face of these facts lqbal Singh cannot be treated as dependent upon the respondent requiring living accommodation. As regards Ravinder Pal Singh third son of the respondent, the petitioner has alleged that he has been working with the respondent running a shop of tailoring materials at Western Extension Area, that he and the respondent are having ration card No 94876, that the accommodation with them is sufficient at the ground floor. As regards married daughter the petitioner has deposed that her need is not of a new occurrence, that it was so even when the premises were let, that the daughter is married in Delhi itself. The petitioner has further alleged that the respondent has other reasonably suitable accommodation. His plea is that the individuals from whom the alleged need is claimed, are not dependent upon him, that Bunglow No. A-125, New Friends Colony, New Delhi was being constructed in 1979, which was meant for their self- occupation, that the ground floor of the suit property i.e. B-10, Nizamuddin (West) was to be vacated and let out but when the bunglow at New Friends Colony was completed the same was let out.

(3.) The respondent-landlord in reply has submitted that the verification of the affidavit was improper and therefore the same deserves to be rejected, that the alleged grounds for leave to defend were vague and indefinite, that the second floor comprises of one room where Amrik Singh, his wife and five children had been residing, that he was not residing independently. The respondent has further alleged that the petitioner has been promising to vacate the premises by 31st March, 1981. The respondent has denied that there was any big kitchen on the ground floor. It has however been admitted that there has been small temporary corrogated sheets in the courtyard, that Barsati measures 121/2' X 101/2', that there is a small store attached to it, that the allegation of existence of kitchen, bath or latrine on the second floor is wrong, that there is an open urinal. As regards status of the sons the respondent admits that Amrik Singh is employed at Faridabad drawing a good salary, having a scooter, that his wife is an insurance agent that his younger son lqbal Singh constructed his house at A-125, New Friends Colony, New Delhi which was let out after completion in August, 1979 at Rs. 2200.00 per month, that the said house was constructed after obtaining a loan of Rs. 2 lacs from L. I.C., that the loan has to be repaid and therefore the house was let out, that Ravinder Pal Singh, third son, has been working with him, that his married daughter with two children often visit him. The Rent Controller refused the petitioner leave to defend, observing that married sons having separate ration cards cannot be the basis for grant of leave, that if a person has an independent house which has been let out still that person is dependent upon his father, that even if the respondent's son is not dependent upon him, the entire accommodation was insufficient for him, The Controller held that the requirement of the respondent was genuine. As regards legal defect in the application he observed that on merits the petitioner had no ground.