SHAHSTRAPAL SHARMA Vs. HORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certam aspects of clause (e) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 arise for consideration in this appeal. Clause (e) of the proviso to section 14(1) is as follows:-

(2.) The respondents (landlords) are the owners of a north-south longish building consisting of 6 rooms and 4 verandahs as shown in the plan Exhibit A.W. 4/1. Respondent No. 1 Horam himself occupies the northernmost room of 9' 4"x18", a verandah, kitchen and a shed all facing a open courtyard. The tenant appellant occupies the adjoining room to the South with a verandah. The room and the verandah further south is occupied by one Ram Saran while the room beyond to the south is occupied by one Ghasi Ram. The last two rooms which are the southernmost and open on the main road were occupied by Nanak Chand and Shanti. The landlords filed petitions for eviction against all the tenants. Their petition for eviction against Ghasi Ram has been finally dismissed. The petition for eviction against Ram Saran is pending. The petitions for eviction against Nanak Chand and Shanti were also based on the ground that those rooms were required by the landlord Respondent No. 1 for the occupation of himself and his family and that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation to live in. These petitions were, therefore, also obviously filed under clause (e) of the proviso to section 14(1). While the petition against the tenant appellant was pending Nanak Chand and Shanti gave up the possession of their rooms to the landlords by way of compromise and the landlords obtained orders for eviction against them. Instead of occupying the rooms vacated by Nanak Chand and Shanti for the residence of himself and his family, however, the landlord Respondent No. 1 converted those rooms into a shop for the use of his son. The londlord Respondent No. 1's case is that he wants the room occupied by the tenant appellant for the residence of himself, his wife, three sons, a daughter-in- law, three children of the married son and his brother who is the colandlord, namely, ten persons in all.

(3.) The Controller dismissed the petition for eviction on the ground that the claim of the landlords was not bona fide for the following reasons, namely:-