RAM DEVI Vs. MOOL CHAND BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against order dated 7th April 1982 of Mrs. Kanwal Inder, Rent Controller, Delhi, by which she dismissed the eviction petition brought by the petitioner seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground covered by clause (e) of proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 Mrs Ram Devi had purchased the property bearing municipal No. 1-66 (of which old number was WZ 862), Kirti Nagar, vide sale deed dated July 25, 1969, copy of the same being Ex. AW2/3. Before purchasing the property in question Ram Devi with her family members was living in a house in Rajinder Nagar which according to the petitioner was sold later on. The house in question has about five rooms on the ground floor and two rooms set on the first floor. It is also not disputed that vacant possession of the whole of the house was taken by the petitioners. The first floor was let out by petitioner No. 2 on behalf of petitioner No. 1 in December 1969. Petitioner No. 2 is the husband of petitioner No. 1 and the admittedly resided on the ground floor of the house for some period and thereafter they had shifted to H-64, Kirti Nagar. It is the case of petitioners that due to paucity of accommodation in house No. H-64, Kirti Nagar, belonging to their son, the petitioner took on rent a house G-15. Bali Nagar, New Delhi, which was later on purchased by petitioners' daughter and it is the case of the petitioners that thereafter they have now shifted to another house in Ramesh Nagar. The petitioners had brought an eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence on the 13th July, 1973 against this very respondent in which it was pleaded that petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the property in question and the premises are needed for occupation as residence by the petitioners and family members dependent upon her and they were not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation. That petition was hotly contested by the respondent. Beside taking the plea that there did not exist the relationship of tenant landlord between him and petitioner No. 1, on merits he pleaded that the petitioners did not bonafide require the premises for their own residence or for residence of their family members as the two rooms set on the ground floor of the same very house had fallen vacant on May 15, 1973 and had been let out to one Jaimal Singh at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month in the month of July 1973. In replication it was pleaded that the two rooms set which had fallen vacant on the ground floor of the house in question had been given by the petitioners to their daughter, namely, Rani and their daughter is dependent upon the petitioners for residence purpose. It was denied that the said two rooms set has been let out to Jaimal Singh. It is to be emphasised at this very moment that no plea was taken by the petitioners in the previous case that any loan of Rs. 40,000/- had been taken from the daughter and in lieu of the same the ground floor of the house has been given to the said daughter in the shape of an equitable mortgage and the petitioners have no control over the ground floor premises. It was also not pleaded that it was necessary to let out the ground floor premises for any economic reasons. After some evidence was recorded in the case on behalf of the petitioners, particularly the statement of lqbal singh, son-in-law of the petitioners, the petitioners withdrew the said eviction petition making a statement that the eviction petition was premature much as it had been brought within five years from the date of the purchase of the property by the petitioners. So permission was sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file fresh petition after expiry of five years period. The eviction petition was thus dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition on the same cause of action. The respondent had not opposed the prayer of the petitioners in that case.

(3.) THE findings given by the Rent Controller that there exists relationship landlord and tenant between the parties and that petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the property in question and that the premises in question had been let out to the respondent for residential purposes are not in challenge before me. The Controller has, however, on appraising the evidence came to the firm conclusion that it is not proved that any loan had been taken by the petitioners from their daughter, namely Rani and that possession of the ground floor had been given to that daughter in lieu of any such loan. It was held by the Controller that no equitable mortgage of the ground floor of the house in fact had been created inasmuch as even the original title deed of the property in question remained with the petitioners which was brought to the Court while proving the same. The Controller also gave finding that houses Nos. 1/130 H-64 and N-83 located in Kirti Nagar were available to the petitioners for their residence. The case of the petitioners however, was that house No. 1/130 Kirti Nagar, is owned by their son Vishwanth H-64 by their son Om Parkash and N-83 by their son Dina Nath. The Controller appears to have gone wrong in giving the finding without there being any evidence on record that these three houses belong to the petitioners. It was for the respondent to have led some evidence to prove that in fact these houses belonged to the petitioners and not to their sons. This finding of the Controller that these houses belong to the petitioners is not being even supported by the learned counsel for the respondent before me. So, I set aside that finding.