SHRI MOHAN LAL Vs. SHRI BODH RAJ MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal, filed by Mohan Lal, the landlord, arises out of an eviction application filed by him against his tenant, Bodh Raj Malhotra, on the ground, inter alia, that the premises in dispute, were let for residential purposes, but are being used for the manufacturing business of the tenant, without his permission and are now required bonafide by him for occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family. Bodh Raj Malhotra, the respondent-tenant, controverted these pleas and contended that the premises had been let out not to him personally, but to Messrs Bodh Raj Malhotra and Company, of which he was the proprietor, "for residential-cum-commercial purposes" and was being used as such with the knowledge and consent of the landlord, and further that the landlord did not require, bonafide, the premises for occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family. The other pleas of the appellant-landlord were also contested.

(2.) The Controller held, inter alia, that the premises in dispute had been let out for residential purposes and that the respondent-tenant had used the same for commercial purposes and had not stopped the misuser in spite of notice as required under section 14 (5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, herein called 'the Act' and further that this user was detrimental to the interest of the landlord. The tenant was therefore, held liable to eviction under proviso (c) to section 14(1) of the Act. It was also held that the landlord required bonafide the premises in dispute for occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family and that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and, therefore, the respondent-tenant was liable to eviction under proviso (e) to Sec. 14(1) of the Act. An order of eviction under provisos (c) and (e) to section 14(1) of the Act was accordingly passed in favour of the appellant-landlord against the respondent-tenant with costs. The Rent Control Tribunal in appeal did not agree with the Controller and set aside the order of eviction. The petition was dismissed with costs throughout. This has brought the appellant landlord to this court in second appeal.

(3.) The Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal have concurred in coming to the conclusion that the landlord was an old man and it was very difficult for him to live alone. His desire to keep his sons and their families with him, therefore, was found to be bonafide. The appellant's sons were in military service and their desire to keep their family members with their father in Delhi was also found to be bonafide. The appellant was in occupation of only one room and a verandah, which was considered unsuitable for the appellant and the members of his family. It was, therefore, held that the landlord bonafide required the premises in dispute for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family and that he had no other suitable residential accommodation. This finding is fully justified and I do not see any infirmity therein.