KESHO RAM Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This revision petition under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 28th July, 1987 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner landlord under clause (e) to proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 read with Section 25 B of the Act was dismissed. This revision was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 9th August, 1990. However, the respondent tenant took the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the case to this Court. The grievance of the tenant before the Supreme Court was that the subsequent events pleaded by the landlord had been taken into consideration by the High Court in its judgment dated 9th August, 1990 without formal proof thereof. The Supreme Court observed in its judgment dated 30th September, 1991 that "It will be for the High Court to decide whether, having regard to the nature of the subsequent facts, it will be necessary to collect oral evidence on them or they could be decided on affidavit - evidence".

(2.) .The petitioner landlord had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 Criminal Procedure Code along with the revision petition being C.M. No.3490 of 1987 whereby certain medical records pertaining to petitioner's wife and his elder son Mukesh Kumar were placed on record for consideration of the Court along with photocopies of the ration card of the petitioner and site plan of the property etc. The petitioner moved another application under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code . being C.M. No.1404 of 1988 to bring on record certain further facts like his son Mukesh Kumar having suffered a heart attack in February 1988 and a son being borne to Mukesh Kumar in April 1988. Yet another application being C.M. No.212 of 1992 was filed on behalf of the petitioner after the remand of the case by the Supreme Court whereby all the facts stated as subsequent events in the previous applications were sought to be placed before the Court in a consolidated manner. It appears that really the intention of the petitioner landlord in moving this application was to comply with the observations and directions in the judgment of the Supreme Court. The respondent tenant also pleaded that two tenants in the property in suit, namely, Om Parkash and Murari Mohan Singh had vacated their respective portions in the property in suit and in view of these portions coming into possession of the petitioner landlord, the need of the landlord for further accommodation stood satisfied. It is to be noted in this context that vide order dated 8th April, 1992 passed on C.M. No.212 of 1992, this Court noted that the learned counsel for the respondent had no objection if the documents and affidavits as prayed for by the petitioner were placed on record and read by way of evidence. Liberty was granted to the respondent tenant to rebut the evidence as produced by the petitioner landlord. Opportunity was also granted to the parties to file further affidavits by way of evidence and rejoinder affidavits. In fact, in pursuance of an order dated 14th September, 1992 passed on C.M. No.2340 of 1992 filed by the respondent, two deponents who had filed affidavits on behalf of landlord were directed to be produced in Court for cross examination. The said two witnesses were produced in Court and were cross examined on behalf of the respondent tenant. These two witnesses are Om Parkash and Murari Mohan Singh about whom the tenant had alleged that they had vacated their respective tenanted portions in the property in suit and those portions had become available to the landlord during the pendency of these proceedings. These tenants had denied having handed over possession of their respective portions in the property in suit to the landlord. The cross examination of the witnesses shows that they have not vacated the respective portions in the property in suit in their tenancy and they continued to occupy the same as also they continued to pay the rents with respect to those portions to the landlord. In cross examination one of the witnesses, namely, Murari Mohan Singh stated that he never went to the Oath Commissioner for attestation of his affidavit filed in Court. On the basis of this statement, the learned counsel for the respondent has prayed that the landlord as well as the said witness be prosecuted for filing false documents in Court proceedigs and making false assertions before the Court. To my mind, this prayer is borne out more of vindictiveness than any bona fide approach to prosecute persons trying to give false evidence or preparing false documents. In the nature of the facts of the present case, I am not inclined to order prosecution on the alleged facts.

(3.) .Coming to the merits of the case, it has to be first noted that the findings of the Additional Rent Controller regarding the petitioner landlord being owner of the property in suit and the premises being let out for residential purposes to the respondent tenant are not in dispute in the present proceedings and, therefore, I need not dilate upon this aspect. Similarly, as noticed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, the tenant has not suggested that the petitioner landlord has any other reasonable suitable accommodation available with him for residence of himself and his family. This leaves me with the only question regarding bona fide need of the petitioner regarding the premises in possession of the respondent tenant.