CHANDER MOHAN SAINI Vs. UJJAGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, the landlord has filed the present revision petition. It has been contended by Mr. Bhargava that the Additional Rent Controller has not taken into consideration Ex. RW 1/6, filed by the respondent which was the order of the Rent Control Tribunal in previously instituted eviction petition holding that the purpose of letting was residential, which was however dismissed. That finding was never challenged by the respondent. That material evidence which was by before the respondent itself was not taken into consideration by the Additional Rent Controller.

(2.) I have perused through Ex. RW 1/6. In paragraph 7 of the said certified copy of the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal it was recorded that the purpose of letting to be residential was not disputed. The relevant material was not taken into consideration by the Additional Rent Controller and, therefore, the Additional Rent Controller has committed a material irregularity and there is an error apparent on the face of the record. On this score, I set aside the finding of the Additional Rent Controller with regard to purpose of letting. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the premises were used for residential purpose by the respondent, the carrying on of the work of the carpentry may be an incidental purpose that will not change the nature and the purpose of letting which was residential.

(3.) I have perused through the site plan filed in the trial court. On the ground floor, the finding of the Additional Rent Controller is that there are five rooms which are available to the petitioner. He has taken rooms which are less than 100 sq. ft. into consideration as bed rooms. From the perusal of the site plan it is clear that there are only three rooms which are over 100 sq. ft. The two rooms which have been taken into consideration by the Additional Rent Controller are of the size of 8'4" x 12'6 and 11'6" x 9'. These rooms at best could be store rooms. There is no other accommodation available in the hands of the petitioner. It has been contended by Mr. Chauhan that the petitioners 1 and 2 do not require any accomandation as they are permanently living in Bombay. Let me ignore the need of petitioners 1 and 2. Petitioner No. 3 requires one room for himself and his wife. Two rooms are required for the married son of the petitioner, one room is required for one unmarried daughter of petitioner No. 3 who is 24 years old and one room is required for the son of the petitioner No. 3 who is 18 years of age. Petitioner No. 3 also requires a drawing-cum-dining room. The requirement of one room each for petitioners 1 and 2 in the house of their father cannot be said to be not bonafide. Although the requirement of petitioners 1 and 2 may be ignored in the present petition, but to say that petitioners 1 and 2 when they have to visit Delhi, they are supposed to stay in a guest house merely to keep a tenant in the house cannot be termed as reasonable. Therefore, I hold that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 also require at least one room in the premises in question. If total requirement of petitioner No. 3 is taken into consideration, it comes to about eight rooms. The petitioner No. 3 has only three rooms, apart from two store rooms as detailed above. On this score also, I set aside the finding of the learned Additional Rent Controller and pass a decree of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. However, I grant six months time to the respondent to vacate the premises. Petition stands disposed of. Revision allowed.