SMT. AHMADI BEGUM Vs. SH. MOHD. ISMAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against order dated August 14, 1985, of Shri P.K. Sharma, Additional Rent Controller, by which he had passed eviction order against the petitioner on the ground of eviction covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.

(2.) THE eviction order is challenged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners only on two grounds, firstly, that the Additional Rent Controller was not right in law in giving a finding that the premises in question had been let out for residential purposes only and secondly, that the Additional Rent Controller was again wrong in giving a finding that the premises are bonafide required by the respondent for occupation as residence for himself and for his family members dependent upon him and the respondent is not in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation. The fact that the respondent is the owner and the landlord of the premises in question is not in dispute.

(3.) AS far as the bonafide need on the landlord is concerned the landlord made a categorical statement as AW1 that this family comprises of himself, his wife, three married sons, two unmarried sons and two married daughters and one unmarried daughter besides a maid servant. He deposed that all his family members are living together and having a joint mess in the house in question itself. He has also mentioned that his married son Ishaq has five children and the second married son Idris has one son. One of his married daughters in is Karachi (Pakistan) and the other married daughter is admittedly living in Delhi. He deposed that all his three married sons are joint in business with him and all of them paying income-tax separately. The landlord and his sons have three firms, namely, M/s. Hindustan Leather Cloth Company, M/s. Foam Traders and M/s. Badar Industries. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of ration card having been produced on the record the Additional Rent Controller was not right in giving a finding that these married sons of the landlord are living with the landlord Counsel for petitioners forgets that the testimony given by respondent on oath was not challenged in the cross-examination at all. No suggestion was given in the cross-examination that any of the sons of the landlord is not living in the house in question with the landlord. So, there was no need for the landlord to have produced any ration card to show that he and all his sons are living together. In the house in question the respondent and his family members have the accommodation located on the first floor and a barsati room at the second floor as shown in the map Ex. AW1/3. If we see map we find that there two regular rooms and then there are two very small rooms available to the respondent and his family members on the first floor and one barsati room on the second floor. It is evident that the landlord and his wife need one room for themselves and three married sons need one room each and two unmarried sons also need a room each besides one room for unmarried daughter and at least two rooms for the grand children of the landlord. So, the accommodation available to the respondent and his family members on the face of it cannot be considered sufficient by any standards. It must be also noticed that although the married sons of the landlord are assessed to income-tax, still they being the family members of the landlord and not shown to have sufficient income to set up separate house, so their need cannot be ignored. Even otherwise it is the need of the landlord himself that his sons, may be married, and even grand children should live with him. So, on that score, also the need of the married sons and the grand children have to be given due importance.