KRISHAN LAL Vs. RAJAN CHAND KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter reffered to as the "Act") has been filed by the tenant-petitioner against the order dated 16.7.1991 passed by Smt. Sunita Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby she has allowed the eviction petition of the respondent-landlord under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act for bonafide requirement and consequently an order of eviction in respect of Kothi No. 5, Sri Ram Road, Delhi has been passed.

(2.) The relevant facts as stated in the petition are the respondent-landlord was the owner of the premises in his capacity as the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family known as Rajan Chand Khanna & Sons comprising of the respondent-landlord himself, his wife and two sons. The premises Kothi No. 5, Sri Ram Road, Civil Lines, Delhi were let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 198.00 p.m. besides Rs. 26.78 as house tax and Rs. 2.00 p.m. as sweeper charges for residential purposes and has been used as such since the inception of the tenancy. The premises were let out in July, 1951 and no rent note was executed.

(3.) The respohdent -landlord had been working with C.P.A. Consultancy Services Private Limited, 11/1-A, Sarojini Naidu Sarani, Calcutta, under a contract for a period of five years at that time, which was to expire on 30th June 1981. At the time of institution of the eviction petition, the petitioner had been residing in Calcutta, but the climate of Calcutta being humid did not suit the eldest son, Rajesh Khanna, of the respondnt-landlord as he had been suffering from Asthma and the doctors advised him to shift his residence from Calcutta to Delhi where the climate is dry. The respondent-landlord wanted to make certain additions and alterations in the premises to suit his requirements, if the premises were vacated by the tenant. The mother and the brothers of the respondent-landlord, along with their family members, are settled in Delhi and the respondent-landlord intended to settle in Delhi on his contract coming to an end on 30th June, 1981. However, the respondent- landlord's wife and sons would immediately shift to Delhi even before the term of the respondent-landlord's contract came to an end on account of ill health of the eldest son of the respondent-landlord. The respondent-landlord had no other suitable accommodation for residence for himself and other members of his family.