M L GUPTA Vs. KRIPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under proviso to Sub-section(8) of Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) is directed against an order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 15.1.2001 by which he has allowed the petition filed by the respondents for eviction of their tenant, the petitioner herein, from premises bearing no.E-24, First Floor, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to this petition are that the respondents have sought the eviction of the petitioner from the premises bearing no.E-24,First Floor, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi under clause (e) of Section 14 (1) of the Act on the averment that the premises were let out to the petitioner vide lease deed dated 01.4.1992 for a period of three years which expired on 31.3.1995. The premises were let out for residential purpose and it was required bonafide by petitioner no.2 (hereinafter respondent no.2)/owner tor occupation as residence for himself and for members of his family dependant upon him since he does not have any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Petitioner no.1 (hereinafter respondent no.1) is the father and holds power of attorney from respondent no.2 in his favour. Respondent no.2 was working as General Manager in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short BPCL) and has retired from service on 30.11.1993. BPCL had provided residential accommodation to respondent no.2 taken on company lease which expired on 31.3.1994. Respondent no.2 and the members of his family are presently residing at house no.29,Vasant Marg,Vasant Vihar,New Delhi which is owned by his father, respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 is not entitled to live there. He is living on the entire first floor which comprised of four bedrooms, four bathrooms, one drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen, terrace, verandah and servant quarter. The current rate of rent of this accommodation would be over Rs.70,000.00 p.m. Respondent no.1 is deprived of the rent of this accommodation. Respondent no.2 is also living there at the mercy of his father since the petitioner has failed to vacate the suit premises. Respondent no.2 has a right to live in his own property. He has prayed for eviction of the petitioner.

(3.) Petitioner contested the eviction petition. By way of preliminary objection it was pleaded that the eviction petition was not maintainable since the petition is filed with ulterior motive. The rent of the accommodations in Delhi has gone up and the petition is filed with the object of disposing it of after it is vacated by the petitioner and Mr.Jag Mohan Khanna, who is living on the ground floor of this property and against whom a similar eviction petition on the ground of personal bonafide need has been filed. It was also stated that respondents were not the owner of the premises. On merit it was pleaded that respondent no.1 was a landlord and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent no.2. The premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose and they were being used for this purpose from the inception of the tenancy. Petitioner had floated a company M/s Tresure Impex (P)Ltd.of which he is the Managing Director and the registered office of the said company is situated in the suit premises. The respondents have suppressed material facts. The premises were let out to the petitioner in 1980 on a monthly rent of Rs.1600.00 p.m. which was later on increased to Rs.2000.00. The premises were not let out to the petitioner on 01.4.1992. There is no registered lease deed executed between the parties. The respondets and their wives form joint family and they are living together as owner in property no.29, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The said house comprised of 10 bedrooms with attached bathrooms, three kitchens, two dining-cum-drawing rooms, two servant quarters, two garages, large front and rear lawns and a big drive-way. The present petition is not filed for bonafide requirement. It was refuted that the respondent no.2 was earlier provided residential accommodation by his employer BPCL. The respondents have failed to give particulars of the said accommodation. Respondent no.1 was a retired officer and was 85 years old. Respondent no.2 was the only son who was living with him. There was nobody else to look after respondent no.1 and his wife. There is no reason for respondent no.2 to leave his old father and live in a separate accommodation which is 12 kms away from Vasant Vihar. Respondent no.2 had throughout been living on the first floor of Vasant Vihar house even when he was serving BPCL and as a camouflage a lease was created between the respondents and the BPCL. The respondents were rich and high placed persons and did not require the suit premises in order to let out the house in Vasant Vihar on rent. Though as per allegation respondent no.2 was to retire from service on 30.11.1993 yet the lease of the suit premises was extended from 01.4.1992 to 31.3.1995 for which no explanation has been given. Respondent no.2 is not the owner of the premises and he had never been introduced as owner by respondent no.1 right from the creation of the tenancy in favour of the petitioner in 1980. Only respondent no.1 had negotiated for leasing out the premises to the petitioner and he had signed all the necessary documents and also the rent receipts without disclosing in any of them that respondent no.2 was the owner. Presumably respondent no.1 having a residential accommodation in Vasant Vihar has filed this petition for the need of respondent no.2 with malafide intention. None of the respondents is owner of the premises in suit. They intend to dispose of the property after getting the premises vacated and they are already in the midst of negotiation with the prospective buyers. The accommodation available to the respondents in Vasant Vihar house is more than sufficient for their need. Respondent no.2 is living with his family there on the first floor comfortably. Respondent no.1 is living with his wife on the ground floor which is more than sufficient for his need as well. The respondents have filed the eviction petition against the ground floor tenant Mr.Jagmohan Khanna on similar ground of bonafide personal need. In none of the two petitions it has been disclosed that the eviction was being sought of both the ground floor and the first floor premises though both the petitions were Tiled by the respondents for bonafide personal need. The intention of the respondents is to sell the property or enter into a collaboration agreement with some builders for developing the property and constructing multi-storey fiats for commercial purposes since the property is situated on the main road.