BRIJ MOHAN Vs. SRIPAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by tenant against the order of eviction dated 293.1985 in favour of the respondent-landlord by the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi (ARC). The landlord had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in respect of a room and a Kotha on the first floor in House No.l331, Vaid Wara Maliwara, Delhi on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. Regarding necessity the landlord stated in para 18(a) of the petition that he had let out the premises for residential purposes. He had a small share in House No.2208, Kucha Alam Chand, Delhi where he had only two small rooms. His third son Ashok Kumar resided in those two rooms with his wife and three children. The landlord himself had two rooms, one Kotha and one kitchen in premises No.l331, Vaidwara, Maliwara, Delhi on the first floor and had no other residential accommodation in Delhi. The aforesaid portion was quite insufficient for his residence and the family members dependent upon him. The family members living with them were Dhanpal Jain, his wife and two children, the second son Chander Pal Jain, his wife and his two children and the third son Rajiv Kumar aged about 23 years. Thus in all there were 11 family members. Dhanpal Jain was earlier posted at Jaipur but had been transferred to Delhi permanently and was posted in the Bank of India. His children were school going and he was an Income Tax payee. The second son Chander Pal was stated to be an eminent Eye Surgeon paying income tax and had clinics in various parts of the city. Third son Rajiv Jain was a student of marriageable age. Besides the aforesaid relations, relatives of the landlord also visited him. The need had considerably increased because of the transfer of Dhan Pal Jain and it had become extremely difficult for him to meet his requirement in the available accommodation.

(2.) In the written statement, the tenant stated that the landlord was trying to increase his family members un-necessarily to create demand for the premises. He further stated that if the family members were as mentioned by the landlord, his need could not be satisfied with the disputed one room and a Kotha inpossession of the tenant. He further stated that the landlord had also a house in Kucha Alam Chand where he had sufficient accommodation. The earning members of landlord's family were not dependent upon him even for purposes of residence. The premises in dispute was not worth the residence of Dharam Pal Jain (wrongly stated in place of Dhan Pal Jain) and he could very well afford a house for himself and his family in a posh Delhi colony and, therefore, his need could not be taken into consideration. The second son also being an eminent Eye Surgeon, according to the tenant, should live somewhere in South Delhi in the interest of his profession, and in any case near his clinic. The landlord was also stated to be actually living in Kucha Alam Chand and had wrongly shown himself to be a resident of the Vaid Wara house. The grand children of the landlord were not dependent upon him for residence because they lived with their parents and not with him. The petitioner has also mentioned the name of one Champat Rai. But the landlord has not mentioned any such name in his petition and it is not understood where from the name of Champat Rai has come. The petitioner further stated that the landlord had filed eviction proceedings against other tenants also and if he got possession of those premises, his need will be satisfied.

(3.) The parties went to trial. The landlord examined himself only as witness in support of his case while the petitioner made his own statement as RW-1 and examined Hari Shanker as RW-2. By the impugned order, the ARC passed an eviction order against the petitioner. He has, therefore, filed the present revision and I have heard oral arguments as well as considered the written submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.