KANWAR BEHARI Vs. VINDHYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Vindhya Devi, landlady of the premises in dispute, filed an application for eviction of Kanwar Behari, tenant, on the ground that she required the premises bonafide for her own use and occupation. The Additional Rent Controller passed an order on l3th March, 1964, for eviction under section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the ground that the premises were banafide required for residence of the landlady and her husband. There is no discussion in the Additional Rent Controller's order about the sole question, elaborately discussed before us, but from one observation made by the Additional Rent Controller it does appear that an argument was raised on behalf of the tenant that the landlady and her husband could not bona fide need such a large accommodation, as is provided by the premises in dispute. Aggrieved by the Additional Rent Controller's decision, the tenant filed an appeal and the Rent Control Tribunal held that the needs of the landlady and her husband alone were to be considered as their son was not dependant on them. The Tribunal also considered the question of the extent of accommodation required by the landlady and said : "The counsel for the appellant contended that the family of the landlady consisted of herself and her husband and that the premises in dispute contained eight rooms besides other amenities and that she was already in possession of one room in this Kothi and that an cider for eviction may be passed for a part of these premises. This contention cannot be accepted. There is no provision in law under which the demised premises in possession of a tenant can be partitioned by the Court for passing an order for eviction. The tenant has to vacate all the premises. This contention is, therefore, rejected." The tenant has come up in appeal in this Court under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

(2.) The matter came up before me sitting alone, and I thought that the question whether under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1968, a landlord is entitled to a decree against his tenant for the recovery of the entire premises, even if bonafide requirement within the meaning of clause (e) of the proviso to sub-secton (1) of section 14 has been established only for a part of the permises, is an important question likely to arise in many cases, and should, therefore, be heard by a larger Bench. This is how the matter has come before us for disposal.

(3.) The sole contention urged on behalf of the tenant is that the premises in dispute consist of eight rooms besides other amenities, and the whole of it cannot be bonafide required by the landlady, whose family consists of herself and her husband only; the suggestion being that in these circumstances the Court should direct eviction only from such part of tha premises as in reasonably required for residence of the landlady and her dependant member of the family. Reliance has been placed on four decisions, of this Court, namly, (1) Moti Lal and another v. Nanak Chand and others, (2) Gan Chand v Miss. S.Sanyal (Civil revision 531-D of 1961) decided on 16 :h November, 1964, (3) Sura) Mal v. Salek Chand and another (Civil revision 560-D of 1958) decided on 17th May, 1960, and (4) Smf. Raj Ram and others v. Jagan Nath and others (Civil Revision 49-D of 1960) decided on 24th May, 1960.