MISHRA LAL Vs. RAMESH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of the ARC directing eviction of the petitioner from property bearing No. 5026 -5028, Roshanara Road, Delhi. There are 25 grounds raised by the petitioner. However, the impugned order has found none of them substantial enough to be considered triable. The petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises vide the impugned order passed on 30.08.2013. The 25. grounds are as under:

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner reiterates each of the grounds before this Court. Additionally he has tried to bring on record photographs to show that respondent/landlord is using an adjacent shop which was earlier allegedly being used by his son to run his own business under the name and style of "M/s. Shakti Properties". He submits that the subsequent development would show that the petitioner was actually in possession and use of the said adjacent property. Hence, the petitioner has no bona fide need of any additional space or of the tenanted premises, for carrying out his business as proposed in the eviction petition. He further submits that son and father already have the first and second floors with them and thus do not need additional space. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Seshambal (Dead) through LRs. Vs. M/s. Chelur Corporation Chelur, in Civil Appeal No. 565 of 2005 which says that subsequent events can be brought on record for consideration in the revision petition. He also relies upon the judgment by this Court in Sandeep Kumar Vs. Nihal Chand : 207 (2014) DLT 104 which permits taking into consideration subsequent events and documents in the revision petition. However, both these judgments hold that the court ought to proceed cautiously apropos the subsequent change in the facts, circumstances and events. It is not in dispute that the photographs which have now been sought to be adduced in these proceedings, pertain to a situation which existed when the application for leave to defend was filed. Indeed, the impugned order itself, in paragraphs 15 and 17, specifically traces the arguments sought to be advanced through the photographs as additional evidence. Therefore; the proposed "additional evidence" has to be and is cautiously rejected.

(3.) THE Trial Court has taken into consideration the circumstance that the landlord has two married daughters who, although settled in their respective matrimonial homes, continue to visit their father every fortnight or so, hence they would need space/accommodation for themselves. This Court is of the view that in some ways the expectation of a married daughter from her father increases. He remains an emotional embankment for her, his responsibilities as a social elder do increase. Socially and as the head of the paternal family he is expected to provide appropriate accommodation to his visiting married daughters, sons -in -law, their extended families, etc. Therefore, for one to contend that simply because daughters have married the need to have additional rooms or retain accommodation for them is not essential, is not acceptable. Indeed, daughters marry they are not married off. Familial and sociological security requires that married daughters should be provided adequate accommodation, if not at least retain their accommodation in their parental homes. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the landlord's bona fide need is not proven. This Court concurs that no triable issues were raised in the leave to defend and finds that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities. The petition is without merit and is frivolous. It is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/ - to be deposited in Prime Minister's Relief Fund within the next two months.