KELVINATOR OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. A P BAGAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner, M/s.Kelvinator of India Ltd. is a tenant in possession of the premises bearing No.29, Friends Colony (West), Mathura Road, New Delhi, having been let out the same by the respondent, Mr.A.P. Bagai as Karta of his Hindu Undivided Family. The respondent claims that his Hindu Undivided Family, consisting of himself and his son, is the landlord/owner of the said premises, which had been purchased by him from Nathu Ram Friends Colony Cooperative House Building Society Limited vide registered sale deed dated 03 January 1970.

(2.) . The respondent, A.P.Bagai, as Karta of his H.U.F., filed apetition on 15 May 1986 under section 14(1) (e) read with section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short theAct),for eviction of the petitioner company from the said premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of self and other members of his Hindu Undivided Family on the pleas : (i) that he was residing on the first floor of a rented house at J-51, Lajpat Nagar III, New Delhi; the landlord of the said house was living on the ground floor of the said house and was pressing him to vacate it; his landlord's harassment forced him to lodge complaints with the police; his landlord had served a notice on him to vacate the premises, failing which he had threatened to take legal action; his relations with his landlord had become strained; being 80 years old, he could not stand any tension and, therefore, it had become a dire necessity for him to occupy his own house and spend the remaining years of his life in comfort and serenity (ii) that he had very recently developed cardiac problem on account of the tension due to the attitude of his landlord, he had been advised not to climb stairs and, therefore, the premises in his occupation had become unsuitable for him and (iii) the other portion built on a part of the premises in question (annexe) had fallen to the share of his daughter Ms. Laxmi Gupta by virtue of a family arrangement, which had been upheld by the High Court of Delhi, and the other members of his HUF were left with no interest in this portion and. therefore, he has no reasonably suitable residential accommodation in Delhi. It was claimed that the respondent was the owner/landlord of the premises which were held by him as Karta of the HUF and the premises had been let out for residence and the same were being used as such for residence of the Managing Director of the petitioner company.

(3.) . The eviction petition was resisted by the petitioner denying the plea of bona fide requirement and alleging that the petition was mala fide, filed for ulterior purpose to have it vacated and re-let at higher rent and/or to sell it with vacant possession on a fabulous price. It was claimed that (i) the HUF was not the owner of the premises in question (ii) the premises had been let out for non-residential/commercial purpose as well and that these were, in fact, being used for business activities of the petitioner company besides for residence of its Managing Director and petitioner company's guest house (iii) the eviction petition was for a part of the tenanted premises, and as such not maintainable and (iv) that the story of strained relations with his Lajpat Nagar landlord, the respondent's ailment or his developing cardiac problem and of the non-availability of the portion of the house allegedly given by him to Ms.Laxmi Gupta in a family arrangement followed by adecree of the court were collusive and fake and the plea of respondent having developed cardiac problem was incorrect and unwarranted. As such, it was pleaded, the petition was not maintainable.