TIN CONTAINERS Vs. KANWAR BHAN WADHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Kanwar Bhan Wadhwa, respondent herein, is the owner of property D-21, Greater Kailash Part I New Delhi. On 14.5.82, he let out the tenanted premises to Messrs Tin Containers, petitioner herein through its partner Rajan Malik for residential purpose of Rajan Malik and his family members dependent upon him and a lease deed was executed which was duly registered. At that time the respondent was a retired Govt. employee and was living as a licensee with his daughter in Govt. accommodation allotted to him in Railway Colony. In May, 1987, he filed an eviction petition against the petitioner on the grounds of bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act read with Section 25-B alleging therein that his family consists on himself, his wife, two unmarried sons and one unmarried daughter and one daughter was married but having matrimonial dispute with her husband. He needs disputed premises bonafide for his residence and for the residence of his family members dependent upon him and his daughter in whose name the Govt. accommodation was allotted is asking him to vacate the premises as she wants to get married. He has no legal right to stay in the house allotted in the name of his daughter. The Addl. Rent Controller passed an eviction order in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner on 9.7.1988. However, six months' time was granted to vacate the premises.

(2.) AGGRIEVED , this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent countered the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that though the respondent let out the suit premises after his retirement but that does not mean that his need now is mala fide. Counsel submitted that there is nothing in law which require a landlord to finally decide about his requirement when he let out any accommodation to a tenant. His requirement may change from time to time. He may not be clever enough to anticipate things. His inability to do so cannot deprive him of his right which he deserves under the Act. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this court in Sen Das v. Madan Lal, 1971 RCR 887. According to the counsel the mere fact that the landlord had started living in another house after his retirement is no ground to refuse ejectment of the tenant when particularly he has no legal right to stay in the house in which he was residing at the time of filing the eviction petition. Reliance has been placed on a decision Gurdial Singh v. Ram Singh, 1982(1) RCJ 452. The members of the family of the respondent are six. He is living with his family members in two rooms accommodation allotted to his daughter and that too as a licensee, i.e., on the mercy of his daughter where he has no legal right to stay. That accommodation is not sufficient for him and his family members and, therefore, the need of the respondent is bonafide and genuine.