SUBHASH CHAND Vs. TRILOK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present respondent (petitioner before the Trial Court) sought eviction in respect of one room, one Kata with common use of W.C. on the first floor of property bearing No. 8362 constructed on plot No. 112, Model Basti, hear Filmistan, New Delhi. The eviction was sought on the ground of bonafide requirement. The case set up by landlord was that he possessed two rooms on the ground floor, one room on the first floor and two rooms on the second floor whereas his family members consisted of himself, his wife, four children two aunts and his mother. Keeping in view the number of his family, he required minimum 8 rooms, whereas in fact he was in possession of five living rooms. The ground floor rooms were used for commercial purpose. He, therefore, required additional accommodation to accommodate his family. So far as two mezzanmine rooms.were concerned, those were being used for storing the goods. Out of the two rooms on the second floor, one room was being used by the respondent/landlord as his bed room. The other room was being used by his aunts. There was also one tin shed provided on the second floor which was hieing used for keeping the cots. One room on the second floor was used for keeping the house hold goods. The petitioner's aunts felt inconvenience because the kitchen, bathroom and the W.C. were situated on the first floor whereas they were occupying the room on the second floor. During the pendency of the petition two more rooms on the first floor in occupation of Shri I.D. Garg fell vacant. The same came in possession of the respondent landlord. The rest of the accommodation was in possession of different tenants. It was in this background that the petition for eviction was filed. This petition was contested by the present petitioner thereby raising the plea that the accommodation with the landlord was sufficient. That the landlord had created artificial scarecity by reletting the premises on the second floor to someone under the garb of friendship. Parties led their respective evidence. The landlord Trilok Chand appeared as his own witness as AW I. On behalf of the tenant, the present petitioner appeared as RW 1. No other witness was examined by either side. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was bonafide and, therefore, granted a decree of possession in his favour.

(2.) The main grievances of the petitioner against the impugned order is that the Controller misconstrued the plea of bonafide requirement of the landlord. The friend of the landlord to whom he parted with the possession of two rooms on the second floor, could not be treated a member of his family dependent on him for the purpose of residence. Hence the Controller ought to haveheld that the respondent by letting out those two rooms on the second floor created artificial scarecity of accommodation available with the landlord. However the subsequent events which the Controller refused to consider clearly shows that the landlord has sufficient accommodation to accommodate his entire family. His two old relative died during the pendency of the petition. Thus the room in their occupation became available to him. Moreover, the inconvenience to these two old ladies could not be a ground any more since they are not alive and finally the landlord had constructed additional accommodation on the second floor. Because of the charged circumstances, the revision should be accepted and the impugned order be set aside.

(3.) I have heard Mr. S.K. Choudhary appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Bansal, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent. So far as the ownership of the respondent is concerned that is not in dispute. The letting purpose being residential is also not in dispute. It is also not disputed that when the petition was filed, the landlord's family consisted of himself, his wife, three school going children, one small child, two aunts and his mother. It is also admitted that his aunts died during the pendency of the petition. It is also a fact on record that two of the rooms became available to the landlord during the pendency of the petition as these were vacated by Mr. I.D. Garg.