C.M. MEHTA Vs. M.P. BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M. Mehta, the petitioner, let out a portion of the ground floor of property No. 11/19, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi to the respondent M.P. Bhalla on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- in April, 1972. On February 25, 1977 he brought an application under proviso (e) to Sub-Section (1) of Section 14 and Section 25(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act) for the eviction of the respondent. Besides the plea that he was the owner of the premises which had been let out for residential purposes, it was averred that he required the accommodation for himself, his wife, a son, a daughter, parents and an unmarried sister. The accommodation available with him consisted of one room on the ground floor; one drawing room, one dining room, one bed room and a box room, two WCs, a Verandah on the first floor, and a Barsati attached with WC on the second floor, which accommodation was not reasonably suitable. He was holding a senior post in the Government of India enterprise and was entitled to accommodation indentical to Class 1 Gazetted Officer of the Government of India. At the time of the lease in favour of the respondent he was posted at Lucknow and now he had been transferred to Delhi.

(2.) THE respondent admitted the letting purpose but denied the ownership. According to him the petitioner was in occupation of a reasonably suitable accommodation and had no bonafide requirement.

(3.) THE expression 'bonafide requirement' means that the requirement of the landlord is genuine and his claim is not motivated by extraneous consideration. Mere wish or desire is not sufficient. There must be an honest and genuine need. He must also prove that accommodation available with him is not reasonably suitable.