RAMESH CHAND Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by the tenant under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is directed against the eviction order dated 29-3-19b5.

(2.) The three landlord-owners namely Om Parkash. Brij Mohan and Dhanno Mal bad filed a petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the petitioner-tenant. In paragraph 18(a) of the petition it was stated that the tenanted premises were let out to the respondent for residential purpose and the respondent was using the same for the same purpose. It was stated that the premises are required bona fide by the owners for their residence and residence of the other members of their families. Admittedly the owners are 20 members of the family as each of the three owners have six or seven members of the family, the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 have also their mother. Thus in all there are 20 members of the owners. It is also an admitted fact that when the present premises were purchased by the owners in 1976 all the petitioners were residing in two rooms. Thereafter the petitioners succeeded in getting certain tenants evicted and came in possession of 7 rooms by the date the present petition was filed. In paragraph 18(a) of the petition it was admitted that the petitioners are in possession of ^ rooms. Later on in the same paragraph it was explained that in fact there are four main rooms and three are by way of stores The learned Addl. Rent Controller, on consideration of the entire material on record, came to the conclusion that the respondent-owners were in occupation of four main rooms and three stores and this accommodation was sufficient for 20 members of the family. However, during the pendency of this revision petition, the tenant has filed three applications under order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first application referred to the fact that the three stores mentioned by the owners in their petition have been converted into regular rooms. The second application brings to light the fact that one tenant namely Devi Parshad who occupying two rooms and open roof on the first floor of the premises had died and his legal heirs had vacated the accommodation and handed over possession to the owners. The third application relates to another tenant namely Prem Narain who has given an undertaking to this Court that he will hand over vacant possession of the premises to the owners-lannlords on or before some date in April 1988. Prem Narain tenant was in occupation of one main room and a store besides the open space. Thus according to the petitioner, the landlord-owners have acquired four more rooms after the decision by the learned Rent Controller. As far as the first tenant namely Devi Parshad (deceased) it is denied by the respondent that the legal representatives have vacated the rooms and along with their reply they have filed an affidavit of one Dinesh Kumar being the son of the tenant Devi Parsbad to the effect that they have not vacated the premises. Devi Parshad is admittedly the near relation of the respondents. In rejoinder the petitioner has stated that Dinesh Kumar and other members of the family had shifted to D-1195 Netaji Subhash Marg. near Masjid, Ashok Nagar, Loni Border, Delhi. A photograph of that house has also been produced. Respondent No. 1 who is present in Court stated that it is true that that house has been taken by one of the legal representatives but only few of them have shifted and not all of them. This is obviously incorrect and is contrary to the affidavit filed by Dinesh Kumar who has categorically stated that all representatives of Devi Parshad are living together. In this situation I have to accept that Dinesh Kumar and other legal representatives of Devi Parsbad tenant have since vacated and have handed over the possession to the respondent-landlords. Thus the respondent-landlords have acquired four more rooms or would acquire these rooms by April 1988 positively. This completely changes the complexion of the case inasmuch as the respondents are now in possession of 7 plus 4 rooms i.e 11 rooms in all besides usual kitchen and bath etc. The premises are located in a slum area and is a 'katra'. As regards the standard of living of the respondents, in the second application under order 41 rule 27 it had been pointed out that one of the respondent-landlords is selling pan, biri and cigarettes on the pavement of Rajpur Road. Dalhi. Certain photographs to that effect have also been shown to me and to the counsel for the respondents which are not disputed. Considering the standard of living, I am of the opinion that 11 rooms for 20 members of the family should be considered to be sufficient accommodation and for the remaining accommodation, the need no longer remains bona fide.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed and the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlords stands dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.