SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI Vs. G N SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a tenant in respect of back portion of ground floor portion of House No. Y-46, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. He was inducted as tenant in July, 1984 in the said portion of the house consisting of one drawing-cum-dining room, one living room, one kitchen, pantry WC and verandah. Respondent herein is the landlord/owner of the premises in question. Respondent filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(I)(e) of the Delhi Control Act (in short the Act). The respondent had sought eviction on the ground that he required the premises for himself and his family. That the first floor of the house in question was in occupation of his son and his family. Part of ground floor in occupation of the petitioner, the front portion of ground floor in his possession was not sufficient for his needs. Respondent landlord, an aged person, his wife about 65 years old. Beside his widow daughter and her family was dependent upon him for the purpose of residence. Thus he required additional accommodation which he did not have. Respondent had retired from a high post from the Ministry of Finance. He was joint Secretary in the State Industrial Development Corporation of India. He started doing the consultancy job. He was in the habit of living in a better life-style. Because of non-availability of a separate room he was forced to use his bed room for consultancy. Since he was not having regular room he felt it difficult to carry on his work. The widow daughter had also been living with him with her family. Her son a school going child also requires room for study. His other married daughter also visits him and stays with him. His son who has settled in America visits and stays with him. Therefore, accommodation in his possession was not sufficient to accommodate all of them.

(2.) Leave to contest was granted. Written statement was filed. In the written statement for the first time the petitioner took the ground that partial eviction had been sought and, therefore, the petition for eviction was liable to be dismissed. According to him beside one room, kitchen also formed part of the tenanted premises. Since eviction has been sought only of the room, therefore, petition was bad in law. This petitioner denied that the need of the respondent/landlord was bona fide. According to him respondent's son Ravinder Kumar and his family had been residing in Gurgaon. The first floor of the premises in question was not in occupation of respondent's son. On these pleadings parties adduced their evidence. By the impugned order the learned Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) accepted the petition and granted decree of eviction holding that the need of the landlord was bona fide.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner against the impugned order as urged by Mr. K.R. Chawla is that the Court below did not take into consideration properly the partial eviction sought, and that the son of the respondent whom he alleged in occupation of the first floor was in fact residing at Gurgaon. Therefore, on both these counts petition should have been dismissed. According to Mr. K.R. Chawla, the learned ARC fell in error in concluding that the kitchen never formed part of the tenancy or that Ravinder Kumar son of the landlord had been residing on the first floor of the premises in question.