DEV RAJ BAJAJ Vs. R K KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) e present Second Appeal arises from the judgment dated November 6, 1985 of Shri M.A. Khan, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The learned judge affirmed the judgment dated October 22, 1984 passed by Shri I.C. Tewari, Additional Rent Controller.

(2.) The brief facts are that the appellant filed a petition for eviction of the respondent on June 5, 1975 from the ground floor of House No. A/I 67, Defence Colony, New Delhi, on the averments that the premises were let out to the respondent for residential purposes and the appellant required the same bonafide for his own residence and for the residence of his family members dependent upon him as the accommodation in his possession was not sufficient. He further alleged that one of his sons was a Class I Gazetted Officer in Central Power and Water Commission and posted at Delhi and he was of marriageable age and his wife was a patient of high blood pressure and she had been under constant fear of heart attack. The Doctor attending on her advised her to avoid climbing the stairs and to stay on the ground floor. The petition for eviction was subsequently amended on August 3, 1976 adding that the appellant had suffered a serious accident on November 29, 1972 and remained in plaster and in bed for more than four months. He also suffered multiple compound fracture in his right leg and inspite of the plaster his bones were not properly set and suffered permanent disability inasmuch as his right leg was shortened by about one inch and he suffered recurring pains in 1974. In February, 1976, he again suffered the attack of pain and he was advised not to exert and climb stairs. The respondent in his written statement refuted the allegations of the appellant that the premises were bona fide required by him for his own use or for the residence of his family and it was denied that the appellant was not in possession of sufficient accommodation or that his wife was ill or that he himself felt difficulty in climbing the stairs etc. According to him, the appellant was in possession of the first and second floors of the demised premises which comprised of three bed rooms, one drawing-cum-dining room etc. as well as two bed rooms, W.C. and bath room etc. respectively. The averments with regard to the illness of the appellant and his wife were vehemently denied. The learned Additional Rent Controller, on appreciation of evidence on record, held that the appellant was in possession of accommodation which was sufficient for his own use and for the use of his family and he did not bona fide require the premises for occupation. The appellant felt aggrieved by the Order of the Additional Rent Controller and filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the contentions of the appellant and held that (a) the appellant was in possession and use of the first floor and second floor of the house and he did not produce any documentary or medical evidence to prove that his wife was suffering from hypertension and she had been given the medical advise against climbing the stairs. Therefore, the need of the appellant could not be held to be bonafide; (b) the accommodation on the first floor and on the second floor comprised of five bed rooms, three on the first floor and two on the second floor and the family of the appellant consisted of himself, his wife, two sons and the daughter and in view of this also, the need of the appellant could not be termed as bonafide as he was in possession of sufficient accommodation at the time of filing the eviction petition ; (c) the fact that the appellant did not plead his own illness as a ground for eviction in the original petition in 1975 was a circumstance which lends credence to the statement of the witnesses of the respondent. The plea that the appellant required the ground floor premises for occupation because of his disability or his inconvenience on account of the fracture in his leg was not true. In the above background, the accommodation of the appellant was held sufficient even after taking into account the casual or short visit of his daughter.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of the Rent Controller as well as of the Tribunal and has vehemently argued that the appellant is not possessed of sufficient and reasonable accommodation and in view of the present size of the family, the accommodation cannot be, in any manner, termed as sufficient. It is well settled that the subsequent events, such as the increase in the size of the family, the age and health of the landlord and other members dependent on him, can be taken into consideration in assessing the requirement and need. The inconvenience in climbing the stairs and health problems obviously come into existence as one grows older.