P NIJHAWAN Vs. K BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act challenging the order dated October 6, 1986 of the Additional Rent Controller, ShriA.K. Garg, dismissing the eviction petition brought by the petitioner on the ground covered by clause(e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Drihi Rent Control Act.

(2.) It is now not disputed before me that the petitioner is the owner- landlord of the premises in question and the same had been let out to the respondent for residential purposes only. The facts as have emerged from the testimony of the petitioner coming as AW1 are that he bad purchased the property in question which consists of ground floor, first floor and barsati floor in the year 1963. Ex, AW1/ 1 is the copy of the lease-deed vide which the plot was taken from the Delhi Development Authority and thereafter the construction was made by the petitioner on the said plot. Initially the petitioner lived on the first floor alongwith his son and his son's wife, but in the year 1968 his son and son's wife migrated to America and the petitioner shifted to the second floor with his wife. According to him, he lived on the second floor from 1968 onward alongwith his wife and his domestic servant but in the year 1977 his wife died and he was living alone on the second floor alongwith his domestic servant. One of the petitioner's daughter was living in Canada but her husband died in 1978 and the said daughter alongwith her only son returned to India in 1979 and they started living in a house in East Patel Nagar belonging to that daughter's mother-in-law. Incidentally the mother-in-law of the daughter of the petitioner is the real sister of the petitioner and she had no other family member except her daughter-in-law and a grandson. The said house in East Patel Nagar also comprises of ground floor, first and barsati floor. The ground floor has two bed rooms, drawing room and other amenities, so also the first floor. It has also come out in his testimony that another son-in-law of the petitioner who had four unmarried daughters has shifted to the said house in East Patel Nagar and started living on the second floor and his three daughters have since been married and he and one unmarried daughter are living on the second floor of the said house and they have a separate ration card and it has also come out in the testimony of the said son-in-law who appeared as AW3 that even electricity and water charges are paid separately by him and as some sign of token compensation he was paying monthly amount of Rs. 150.00 or so to the petitioner's sister. The petitioner had inducted the respondent as tenant on the first floor in the year 1971 and the letters Ex. AW1/1 to AWI/4 written by the respondent show that the first floor was taken by the respondent for residential purpose only. The petitioner had been letting out the ground floor of the house to different tenants at different times. The last tenant who was inducted in the premises is one Shri Harihar Lal paying Rs. 800.00 per month as rent. He was inducted in the year 1978. With each change of tenant admittedly enhanced rent was realised by the petitioner. The petitioner is now aged about 84 years old. It is his case that in the year 1979 he became seriously ill and so he shifted to the house of his sister so that he could have somebody to look after him and his sister and his daughter, who had no male member to look after them also could be looked after by him. The petitioner presently continues to reside in East Patel Nagar house with his sister, daughter and another son-in-law.

(3.) The case set up by the petitioner in the eviction petition is that he has now suffered a heart attack in the month of August 1983 and he had taken treatment in Ganga Ram Hospital and he has been now advised not to strain himself much and he has now a keen .desire to live in his own house as accommodation in the house of his sister has become insufficient inasmuch as his sister's grand son is to be married and he has also to open a dental clinic in that house. He has also taken the plea that his widower son-in-law AW3 would also shift with him to the house in question and thus he bonafide requires the premises in question for occupation for himself and also for his son-in-law and unmarried daughther of son-in law.