KRISHAN LAL ARORA Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal arises form the judgment dated Jaunary 11, 1984 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, which upheld the order of eviction passsed by the Additional Rent Controller on 6th August, 1983.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a tenant in respect of the demised premises consisting of one room, kitchen, bath, toilet forming part of property No. 461-462, Nau Ghera, Teliwara, Delhi, which were let out for residential purposes. The eviction petition was filed on the grounds of bonafide requirement as well as for non-payment of arrears of rent since December, 1977 at the rate of Rs. 25.00 per month despite service of demand notice dated August 30, 1979. The family of the respondents comprised of husband, wife (respondents herein), four daughters and three sons. The appellant contended that the respondents did not need the premises bona fide and their main motive was to let out the same for commercial purposes. After the purchase of the property in June, 1974 the respondents let out the other portion to M/s Batra Glass Co. and Joginder Nath who was having a Kabari shop. The room in possession of the appellant was a very small room and the appellant had unmarried sister who was also living in the same premises.

(3.) The Additional Rent Controller appraised the evidence on record and came to the findings (a) that the family of the respondents consisted of husband, wife, four daughters, three sons, two of them were married having children and, as such, they could not be accommodated conveniently in one room; (b) the appellant has not been able to establish the motive of the respondents to get the premises vacated and re-let the same for commercial purposes on a higher rate of rent. In view of the admitted facts, as stated above, the requirement of the respondents was held to be bonafide and an order of eviction was passed in their favour. The petition, however, was dismissed under Section 14(1 )(a) of the Act as not maintainable. The appellant felt aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller and filed an appeal in the Court of Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The plea of the respondents for eviction on the ground as contained in Section 14(1 )(a) was rejected and the order of the Rent Controller was affirmed in this regard. The Tribunal next considered the ground of eviction under clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section I of Section 14 of the Act and referred to the evidence on record. There was no dispute about the purpose of letting which was accordingly held to be residential. The ownership of the respondents was proved and finding in this regard was also affirmed. The question of bonafide requirement was considered including the plea that the Rent Controller was in error in looking after the requirement of respondents' daughters who were married. The learned judge accepted that the requirement of the married daughters has to be excluded except for their temporary visits. The appellant also moved an application under Order 41 Rule27oftheCode of Civil Procedure during the pendency of the appeal to reiterate that the eldest son of the respondents had shifted to another premises as well as to prove that the respondents owned other property which will indicate that they did not require the tenanted premises bona fide. The respondents contested this application and reasserted that their sons were living with them and they had taken premises No. 1487/96 Shanti Nagar, Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs. 200.00 as licencees. It is denied that any of their sons was permanently living in that house. came in possession of the respondents was also negatived on the ground that the said accommodation were shops and not residential rooms and it will be unfair to insist that the landlords should live in these shops.There is no serious challenge to these findings.