R K ANTANI Vs. R N CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order dated 20th 0ctober,1993 of the learned Addl.Rent Controller (ARC) by which he granted an eviction order in favour of the landlord-respondent-1 Sh.R.N.Chopra. According to the landlord, respondent No.2 M/s Concord International Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called 'M/s Concord') 5, Golf Links, New Delhi was the tenant while the petitioner Sh. R.K. Antani is stated to be a person who was first occupying the premises as an employee of tenant. Later on landlord came to know that the petitioner ceased to be an employee of the tenant about which fact he was not informed either by the tenant or the petitioner. His further claim in the eviction petition was that he required the premises bona fide for occupation as residence for himself and for members of his family dependent upon him. He also stated that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. He was in occupation of first floor of the suit property bearing No.B-110, Sarvodya Enclave, New Delhi. He had four bed rooms, a living room, kitchen, store and passage as shown green in the site plan. His family comprised of himself, his wife and two married daughters Dr.(Mrs.)Neeru Kapur and Dr.(Mrs.) Sarita Bajaj. Mrs.Bajaj along with her husband was alleged to be residing at Allahabad and came to Delhi on visits quite often. Mrs.Kapur is stated to be employed as Scientist-B in the Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Allied Sciences, Lucknow Road, Delhi 'and staying in Delhi. Her husband Sh. Vinod Kapur was employed as Manager in National Hydro Electric Power Corporation and posted in Jammu & Kashmir at the time of filing of the petition. They had a 1-1/2 year old daughter who was staying with her mother Mrs.Kapur. At present Mrs.Kapur was staying with her parents in law. But her husband had three brothers and one sister. The sister was a divorcee and had a daughter. They were also staying with parents of Mr.Kapur. The other two brothers of Mr.Kapur are married and employed in Delhi while his third brother is employed at Lucknow. His father owns a double storeyed house BK-67, West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi constructed at a plot of 125 Sq.yards. The accommodation with the parents, brothers and sister of Mr.Kapur was not sufficient to accommodate all members and daughter of the landlord. She wants to have a separate residence. Moreover, the landlord himself is aged about 65 years while his wife is aged about 63 years. Both are not keeping good health. The landlord is stated to be a chronic patient of Angina and heart while his wife suffers from Arthritis and Spondylitis. Landlord also had a massive heart attack in December,1988 and was admitted at that time to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of All India Institute of Medical Sciences from 18.12.1988 to 30.12.1988. One of his major heart artery is stated to be damaged. On account of the physical ailment both he and his wife have been advised not to climb stairs and rather stay on ground floor. The landlord requested .the petitioner and the tenant to vacate the premises. Despite assurance, they are stated to be evading the vacation of the house. Landlord also does not have any male issue and his younger daughter Mrs.Kapur is also stated to be dependent on him for residence. Because of their old age, they require constant attention of some body who could live with them tind look after them. Elder daughter of the petitioner, namely, Mrs.Bajaj, after the marriage of his younger daughter had to take two years leave from 1.1.1991 to 11.12.1992 from her assignment in Allahabad to remain in Delhi to look after him and his wife. Landlord further stated that he belongs to an Orthodox Hindu family and thus would not like to share kitchen with his daughter. Therefore, he requires a separate kitchen for his daughter and son-in-law who would be staying with him in the suit property. His plan is that after eviction of the tenant and the petitioner he along with his wife would shift on ground floor while his daughter and son-in-law along with their child will stay on the first floor where he presently stays. The landlord, it is further stated, has four brothers and two sisters. One sister stayed at Ludhiana while the other is a widow who shuttled between Delhi and USA where her only son is in business. She does not have any independent establishment of her own in Delhi and stays with him as and when she visits Delhi. One of his brother stays at Panchkula, the second one in U.K while his third brother is in New Delhi. His brothers and sisters also frequently visit him and stay with him for nights and sometimes for days together. Thus he requires minimum two rooms as guest rooms for stay of his relatives. The wife of the landlord also has four brothers and two sisters out of whom three brothers and one sister are settled at Delhi and one brother at Vishakapatnam. The elder sister is at Dhanbad. All her family members on visit to Delhi also stay with them quite frequently. In this manner they required one entire floor for their daughter and son-in-law and their other family members. The landlord also has a servant for whom he requires one room. Though there are two rooms, one above the other, on mezzanine floor above the garage, the same are not suitable to his requirement and , therefore, they are not occupied by him. So far as the petitioner in the present revision is concerned, he is stated to have no right to stay in the disputed premises as he is an un-authorised sub-tenant. He has been made a party to avoid any further controversy at a subsequent stage.

(2.) It may be noted that the alleged tenant M/s Concord after due service did not choose to file any application for leave to defend. Only the petitioner filed such an application with an affidavit. His case is that M/s Concord is not a tenant of the landlord. The premises in fact were taken on rent by the said tenant for residence of the petitioner only. Negotiations regarding terms of the tenancy were also settled between him and the landlord. The first payment of rent was made by him through cheque while the subsequent payments were made by M/s Concord towards his account and the amount used to be deducted from his salary. Some time towards the end of 1980, the landlord approached M/s Concord to enquire if it had any objection to the petitioner being taken as a direct tenant by him. Then the landlord and M/s Concord agreed to the same and since then petitioner had been living in the premises as a tenant of the landlord. In April, 1980 he resigned from the service of M/s Concord and since then he had been paying rent to the petitioner by bank drafts. The landlord had also moved another petition earlier wherein the petitioner had made an application for being impleaded as a party at the stage of appeal against an order under Section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act ('Act' for short). The Rent Control Tribunal had allowed his appeal and he was directed to be made a party. Suffice it to note that the petitioner also disputed the claim of the landlord on bona fide requirement of the accommodation in his possession. All the allegations made by the petitioner were controverted by the landlord.

(3.) I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. According to the findings of the learned ARC the petitioner is not a tenant in the suit premises under the landlord. However, in the alternative, assuming that the petitioner was a tenant, he came to the conclusion that the landlord could not be deemed to have sufficient accommodation in his possession in view of his large family and specially the fact that he wanted his daughter and son-in-law to stay with him in a part of the first floor of the house to look after him; and his aged wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed these findings and submitted that it was amply proved in a prima facie manner that the petitioner was a direct tenant of the landlord and he was entitled to show that the landlord did not require the premises bona fide. Therefore, it was a fit case wherein leave to defend should have been granted to the petitioner so that he could prove beyond doubt that he in fact was accepted as a tenant by the landlord some time in 1980. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is vehemently controverted on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, we will have to see whether, in fact, the petitioner was able to make out a prima facie case that he was actually a tenant of the landlord and thus entitled to the grant of leave to defend the petition. In this respect learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to a letter dated 30th November,1980, Ex.R-1 alleged to be written by the landlord to M/s Concord, which is as follows: RNC/9/1980 DATED: 30-11-80 From: R.N.CHOPRA B-110, Sarvodaya Enclave,(lst Floor) Sri Aurbindo Marg, New Delhi-110017 To M/s Concord International (Pvt) Ltd., 5, Golf Links, New Delhi-110003. Dear sir,. REG: LEASE AGREEMENT OF B-1 10, SARVODAYA ENCLAVE (GROUND FLOOR) Please refer to the Lease Agreement dated 13.5.1978 in respect of the above mentioned premises which is due to expire on 11th March,1981. 2. Shri R.K.Antani(petitioner), an official of your Co., who is staying in the Leased premises,has suggested that you are agreeable to the termination of the lease with immediate effect and that the said lease may ' be transferred to him. I shall, therefore, be grateful if you could confirm the termination of the said lease in favour of M/s Concord International (Pvt.Ltd.) w.e.f. 30.11.80. (A.N.). Yours faithfully, (R.N.Chopra) Owner of B-110, Sarvodaya Enclave, Sri Aurbindo marg, New Delhi-110017.