ROSHAN LAL Vs. KULDIP RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [Ed. facts : Petitioner is living at Udaipur and doing business there with his sons. His wife had cancer in 1978 and was treated at AIIMS upto 1985. He is suffering from heart disease and his doctor advised him for specialized treatment at AIIMS. He sued respondent for eviction u/S 14(l)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act). After trial Additional R.C. held that he was owner-landlord, letting was for residence and that he had no accommodation at Delhi. But his petition was dismissed on the ground that he had not proved bonafide need. He filed revision in High Court]. After detailing above, judgment is:

(2.) Aggrieved, this revision has been filed by the petitioner. Arguments advanced before me is only with respect to the finding of the Addl. R.C. that the petitioner has failed to prove the bonafide requirement. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no doubt, the petitioner along with his family members is residing at Udaipur and doing business there, but at Udaipur adequate medical facilities are not available for him and for his wife. Mere fact that the business of the petitioner is at Udaipur does not disentitle the petitioner and his wife to settle at Delhi in his own house for ensuring special medical attention. According to the learned counsel, the Additional R.C. not only misread the evidence but also misinterpreted it. The petitioner wants to shift to Delhi along with his wife and except the premises in dispute he has no other suitable residential accommodation at Delhi. He drew my attention towards the statement of the petitioner who appeared as AW 1, particularly towards the portion, wherein he has stated that the premises are required for him and his wife for residence at Delhi. He also drew my attention towards the statement of Dr. Survir Singh of Udaipur whose statement was recorded on commission as CW 1. He has proved the certificate Ex. CW 1/1 and CW 1/2 issued by him. Dr. Survir Singh has deposed that the petitioner is under his treatment since 1965 and is suffering from ischaemic heart disease and was kept in the hospital for three weeks. He has suffered many attacks of angina which can result in massive attack or some serious life threatening complications. He has been advised coronary bypass surgery at AIIMS, New Delhi. This facility is not available .at Udaipur. According to the counsel for petitioner, statement of petitioner coupled with the statement of Dr. Survir Singh and other documentary evidence from the AIIMS produced by the petitioner, establish that the petitioner and his wife require medical treatment which is available at Delhi only and that they bonafide require the premises for their residence as they want to settle at Delhi on health grounds.

(3.) Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on a decision of the single Judge of this court in Virender Paul vs. Daljit Singh 1978 (1) R.C.J. 365 in support of his contention that Section 14(l)(e) of Act does not entitle the court to pass an order of eviction against the tenant where the landlord needs a house temporarily. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner and his wife are leading normal life and are permanently settled at Udaipur carrying on business there. The wife of the petitioner was operated upon in 1978 in AIIMS but the petitioner is settled at Udaipur and is carrying on business since 1966 which consists of business of petrol pump, kerosene oil. It is admitted that all his sons are carrying on business there and they have no business in Delhi. There is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner along with his wife wants to shift to Delhi. They are suffering from any ailment which require special treatment at Delhi. No doctor from A1IMS has been examined by the petitioner to support his contention. Only some technicians have been examined to prove the OPD tickets Ex. AW 3/2-4. Even according to the OPD tickets it is not established that wife of the petitioner has been advised to stay in Delhi. Rather nothing abnormal was detected after her operation of breast. These documents show that she visited AIIMS upto 1985 and nothing abnormal was detected. From the evidence produced by the petitioner, it is not at all established that he required the tenanted premises bonafide for his residence and of his family members dependant upon him.