H ABNASH CHANDER SEHGAL Vs. V K KHARBANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been brought under Section 25(B) 8 of Delhi Rent Control Act against the order dated 10th May, 1985 of Sh. G.D. Dhanuka, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by which he dismissed the petition for eviction brought by the petitioners on the ground of bona fide requirement for residence of the premises in question.

(2.) . Admitted facts in brief are that property bearing Municipal No. 883/884, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, was purchased by the petitioners in the year 1967 as per sale deed which is Ex. AW-I/I. The property was in occupation of different tenants but ultimately the petitioners got vacated certain portions by filing eviction cases and some tenants vacated on their own and petitioners started living in the ground floor of the said property. The premises in the first floor, which are now in tenancy of respondents, were lying vacant for some period and they came to be let out to respondent on the 5th February, 1972 at the rental of Rs.500.00 per month after necessary permission had been taken from the Rent Controller for creating limited tenancy for two years under Section 21 of Delhi Rent Control Act. Petitioner No. 1 is the son of petitioners 2 & 3. Petitioner No. 2 was a practising Advocate, admittedly had become ill for about 10 years prior to his death. He died during the pendency of the eviction case. Eviction petition was brought on the 27th February, 1980. It was the case of the petitioners that premises in question had been let out to the respondent only for residential purposes. Wife of petitioner No. I, admittedly, is working in Safdarjang Hospital and she got allotted a Government accommodation at 160, Laxmibai Nagar, New Delhi. That accommodation remained vacant for some period as petitioner No. I is stated to have gone to U.K. for getting some treatment and on his return from U.K.., petitioner No. 1, his wife and two sons shifted to 160, Laxmi Bai Nagar flat whereas petitioners 2 & 3, parents of petitioner No. 1, continued to reside in the ground floor of the house in dispute. It was the case set up in the petition that petitioner No. 2 had grown old and due to his ailments he could not continue to live alone without there being any male member to look after him, so petitioners 2 & 3 also shifted to flat at Laxmibai Nagar and as the ground floor, which they vacated, was no more required for residence, so the same was let out to C.G.H.S. for running a dispensary at the rental of about Rs.2,900.00 per month. It was pleaded in the petition that soon after petitioners 2 & 3 started living with petitioner No. 1 and his family members, petitioners 2 & 3 felt uncomfortable in the small rooms available in that flat and they had the feeling of choking and there also arose quarrels between wife of petitioner No. 1 and petitioners 2 & 3 as unexpectedly wife of petitioner No. 1 did not like petitioners 2 & 3 living with them and at one point of time, even petitioner No. 1 was rebuked by his wife when he advised his wife to behave properly with his parents but his wife flared up and retorted that he and petitioners 2 & 3 should leave her flat and live in their own house. So, it was urged that the petitioners did not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation for their residence and bona fide required the premises in question for occupation as residence.

(3.) . The petition has been contested by the respondent. The respondent has taken the plea that he has taken the premises in question for residential-cum-clinic purposes and he has been using the same from the very inception of the tenancy for both purposes. He pleaded that a fraud was practised in obtaining permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act as he was assured by petitioner No. 2 that it was only a paper work and he could use the premises for his professional purposes also. It was further pleaded by the respondent that after he left Government service in 1975, he has been using the premises continuously for residential-cum-clinic purposes to the knowledge of the petitioners and petitioners have never objected to the such user at any time and as a matter of fact, petitioners and their family members had been having treatment from the respondent at his clinic in the premises in question and they had been also recommending patients for treatment at the clinic of the respondent in the premises in question. It was. pleaded that the petitioners were estopped from asserting that the premises in question had been let out for residential purpose only. The respondent further pleaded that the petitioners had shifted to Laxmi Bai Nagar flat knowing very well the accommodation available in that flat and within six months of shifting in said flat there had not taken place any change in circumstances necessitating the return of the petitioners to the house in question for their residence. He denied that any quarrel had taken place between the petitioners and wife of petitioner No. I at any time. He pleaded that petitioners have reasonable suitable accommodation in Laxmi Bai Nagar and moreover, petitioners have tworoom set for their residence available to them in the ground floor of the house in question and two rooms in mezannine floor and another room in the ground floor of the house. He also pleaded that another two room set was in occupation of a sister of petitioner No. 3 who had no right to stay in that flat and who had also constructed her own house where she had shifted. He also mentioned that another two room flat was in unauthorised occupation of nephew of petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 and in case the petitioners had any need of residing in property in question they could easily occupy any of those flats. He further pleaded that real intention of filing the present petition is to put pressure on the respondent to increase the rent as he did not succumb to the oral request of increase in rent made by petitioner No. 3 and petitioner No. I in the presence of some witnesses. He also mentioned that ground floor had been let out for commercial purpose at an exhorbitant rent and petitioners wish to get vacated the first floor in order to let out the same at enhanced rent. It was further pleaded that the petitioners had also at one point of time advertised in the newspaper for selling the house in question.