CHANDER SAKHI KHANNA Vs. GURAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner sought eviction against the respondent from the ground floor of premises bearing No.45/5, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The eviction was sought because the tenanted premises was required by the petitioner for herself and the members of her family dependent upon her for residence. It was the case of the petitioner that she alongwith the members of her family was residing on the first floor of the premises consisting of two rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine. Keeping in view large number of her family members, the accommodation with her was not sufficient to cater to their needs. Accordingly she required additional accommodation on the ground floor of the premises, hence the petition.

(2.) By the impugned order dated 4th Scptcmbcr,1996 learned Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) held that the petitioner was the owner/landlord of the premises in question. That the premises was let out for residential purpose. That the accommodation with her on the first floor was not sufficient to accommodate her family members dependent upon her for the purpose of residence. Her family consisted of six adull members and one child. It has also been established that she has no other alternative suitable accommodation to reside. The only ground on which the petition has been dismissed is that the petitioner had shown intention to sell this property, therefore, her need was not bonafide. Customers with respondent No.3 a property dealer had gone to her house for the purpose of sale of the property. Because of this, it was held that the petitioner did not require the premises bonafide for her residence. On account of the dismissal of the petition, present revision has been preferred.

(3.) The short point for consideration in this petition is, whether having held that the accommodation with the petitioner was insufficient, could her petition be dismissed on the verbal testimony of RW-3 Govind Ram, who happened to be a relation of the tenant. Could the Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC) on the basis of evidence on record come to the conclusion that the petitioner was interested to sell the property? For this purpose, we have to keep in mind two facts namely (i) in the writ ten statement filed by the respondent he did not disclose the names of the customers who contacted the petitioner for the purchase of her property nor the name of the property dealer was mentioned. Even the amended written statement was vague with regard to the particulars of customers and the property dealer. Secondly no suggestion or question was put up to the respondent landlady when she appeared as AW-1 that Shri Govind Ram, RW-3 contacted her for the sale of the house or she intended to sell the property or any customer approached her for the purpose of purchase of this property. Nor even a suggestion was given to her that she had authorised her son Sushil Khanna to deal with this property. On the contrary she categorically said that she never asked the respondents to purchase the property. She wanted the tenanted premises because she wanted to live in the same. The defence taken by the respondent that she wanted to sell to him was thus denied by her. She categorically stated that she needed the premises as an additional accommodation because her family dependent upon her for residence could not be accommodated in the accommodation available on the first floor of the premises in question. She needed the premises in question for her residence and for the residence of her large number of family members. The only suggestion given to her was that she wanted to increase the rent, since he did not agree, therefore, she filed the petition. This suggestion she categorically denied. The neighbour of the petitioner who appeared as her witness Mr.S.S. Sabharwal, AW-2 supported her case and denied the plea raised by the respondent herein. Not even a suggestion was given to AW-2 that the petitioner wanted to sell the property. After all being a neighbour he would have known if the petitioner had any intention to sell her property. Respondent's son Mr.Varinder Kumar Kohli appearing as RW-1 never stated that the petitioner intended to sell the property or anyone approached her for the sale of this property. The best person who could have thrown light on this aspect was cither the petitioner herself or her neighbour or at best the respondent himself. But neither of them stated that the petitioner intended to sell her property. It was only in cross-examination that Mr.Varinder Kumar Kohli stated that one Vishal Property Dealer and one M/s S.M. Associates came to him regarding sale of property in question. But when subjected to further cross-examination he ad- mitted that neither of the property dealer had any authority on behalf of the landlady to contact for the sale of the property. So far as Govind Ram, RW-3 is concerned, I am afraid his testimony cannot be relied because his statement is based on hearsay evidence. Moreover, he happens to be a relation of the respondcnt/ tenant. Mr.Adlakha appearing for the petitioner contended that Govind Ram, RW-3 was attorney of Shri H.R.Sahni. The said Mr.Sahni happens to be a relation of the respondent. To prove this fact Mr.Adlakha placed on record copy of the perpetual lease deed executed on 5th August,1978 between M/s Rajdhani Co-operative House Building Society of one part and Mr.H.R.Sahni of the other part. On that perpetual lease deed, Mr.Govind Ram, RW-3 signed on behalf of Mr.H.R.Sahni as his attorney. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that Mr.Govind Ram was an independent witness. Being an in- terested witness his testimony cannot be accepted without corroboration. His version has hot been corroborated on record. The fact that Sushil Khanna, son of the landlady, contacted him was never put to AW-I the landlady. Not even a suggestion was given to her that Govind Ram alongwith one customer came to see her house for the purpose of sale on the instructions of her son Sushil Khanna. When subjected to cross- examination, Govind Ram, RW-3 could not produce any document to show that he was the partner of M/s S.M.Associates nor could produce any authentic evidence to show that Sushil Khanna contacted him regarding the sale of the house. RW-3 admitted that his Firm used to note down the names of the partics i.e. of sellers and buyers as well as the fee if any charged. He, however, could not produce any such note book containing the names of the partics i.e. of seller or of buyer. He could not tell the name of the parly who intended to purchase the house in question. Nor could Fill the address of that customer nor his telephone number. According to Govind Ram, RW-3 intending purchaser never contacted after the First visit. He admitted that he never dealt with the sale and purchase of any property at Ramesh Nagar i.e. where the property in question is situated or in the adjoining area at Rajouri Garden, Subhash Nagar, Bali Nagar, Kirti Nagar. He further admitted that Sushil Khanna never showed him any document of the properly nor enquired whether Sushil Khanna was the owner of the property in question. He did not bother to verify as to in what capacity Sushil Khanna contacted him for the sale of this house. As per his version Sushil Khanna staled that the property belonged to his wife. This admission on the part of RW-3 Govind Ram amply proves that the landlady had no intention to sell the property. Had been so Sushil Khanna would not have told him that property belonged to his wife. RW-3 nowhere stated that he met the landlady at any time with regard to the sale of her house. He admitted that he never talked to Smt.Chander Sakhi Khanna, owner/landlady of the house regarding sale of her property. The fact that he denied having known Smt.Ved Sahni and also denial as to where she was residing shows RW 3 was not a truthful wilness. He acted as attorney of Mr.H.R.Sahni, husband of Smt.Ved Sahni and signed the perpetual lease deed on his behalf shows that Govind Ram, RW-3 was concealing his true identity. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that he was an interested witness or his testimony inspire confidence.