RAMESHWAR GOSWAMI Vs. KULDEEP KUMAR MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/landlord required the ground floor of premises No. F-45, Green Park, New Delhi, for himself and members of his family. The members of his family consisted of himself, his wife, son and daughter. For purpose of residence his brother and his family are occupying first floor of this premises. He, therefore, filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) under the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act). He pleaded himself to be the owner/landlord of the premises in question. That the premises was let out for residential purposes on 1st March, 1977. The same was required by him for the residence of his son who is a practising lawyer at Delhi as well as for the residence of his daughter who wanted to study at Delhi. He being a practising lawyer often visits Delhi in order to appear in the High Court of Delhi and Supreme Court of India. His normal visits vary but at least thrice a month he comes and stay at Delhi. That the first floor of the premises is not available being in occupation of his brother and his family. His brother had undergone by-pass surgery and needed residence. Petitioner accordingly allowed his brother and his family to occupy the first floor. Hence first floor of the house being in occupation of his brother, he needed the premises in occupation of the respondent for the residence of his son, daughter and himself. It was in this background that the aforesaid petition was filed.

(2.) That petition was contested by the respondent, inter alia, on the grounds that brother of the petitioner occupied first floor as a caretaker of the petitioner. The said brother remains out of India for six months at a stretch. He intends to shift abroad with his family. Thus first floor of the premises in question is available to petitioner. The accommodation of the first floor and ground floor being identical and that accommodation being available, therefore, the need of the petitioner is not bonafide. It has been denied by the respondent that the son of the petitioner is practising lawyer at Delhi or his daughter intends to shift to Delhi. These assertions of the respondent have been controverted by the petitioner by his affidavit.

(3.) The learned Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) by the impugned order granted leave to the respondent to contest the case, primarily for the reason that in the eviction petition the petitioner no where mentioned that his brother has no alternative accommodation available at Delhi or that the said brother is dependent on the petitioner for the purpose of residence. In the absence of evidence establishing this fact the need of the petitioner cannot be called bonafide.