RAJENDER SINGH Vs. P K SUKUMARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rajinder Singh petitioner herein sought eviction against his tenant of the front portion of the first floor of his property bearing No.D-32, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Eviction was sought because petitioner needed the premises for his bonafide requirement. The Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC) after examining the case on merits vide the impugned order dated 29th July,1995 dismissed the petition. So far as material facts which are required to be stated under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) which would entitle him to get an order of eviction are namely (i) Ownership of the petitioner (ii) that the premises was let out for residential purpose (iii) The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties (iv) That petitioner has no reasonable suitable alternative accommodation and finally (v) He needs the premises bonafide. So far as ownership, letting purpose and relationship is concerned these facts stood fully satisfied and accepted by the learned ARC. However, the learned ARC found that the need of the petitioner was not bonafide. He had concealed the factum of allotment of Government accommodation in his favour. Further learned ARC found that the petitioner could keep his family in his ancestral house at Naraina. Hence dismissed the petition.

(2.) Aggreived by that order present revision was preferred. The challenge is primarily based on the ground that the learned ARC failed to appreciate the fact that when the petition was filed Government accommodation had not been allotted to him. Hence he had no alternative accommodation available with him either at the time of filing the petition or when he gave his statement. The learned ARC mixed the facts of this case with the facts of another case pending between the petitioner and his other tenant.

(3.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised at the Bar, brief facts of the case must be gone through. That the property in question stood in the name of petitioner's mother. She let out the front portion of this premises to the respondent. It was the case of the petitioner that the plot underneath the house was purchased in the name of petitioner's mother out of the HUF funds. His mother was also member of the HUF. The property was in fact owned by the HUF of Banwari Lal. All the immovable properties belonging to HUF were partitioned on 1st May,1984. After the partition of the HUF, the entire first floor of the property bearing No.D-32, Hauz Khas, New Delhi fell to the share of the petitioner. Properties at Naraina fell in the share of his parents and brothers. Intimation of this partition and falling of this first floor in the share of the petitioner was communicated to the respondent/ tenant. Respondent in turn attorned to the petitioner as his landlord/owner. He thereafter started paying rent regularly to the petitioner. The petitioner being in the service of CRPF was posted as Commandent at Wazirabad, New Delhi. He required a residence for himself and members of his family. Since his own house was not available hence he started living in a tenanted temporary accommodation at Ravinder Rangshala, New Delhi in the 14th Batalian, CRPF alongwith his family. He being in Central Armed Forces had to undergo frequent transfers, therefore, wanted to settle his family at Delhi. His children were getting education at Delhi. He did not like the education of his grown up children to be hampered by frequently taking them with him wherever he was posted. He did not own nor was in occupation of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation at Delhi. The premises in question was the only residence on which he had a right. The rear portion of this first floor had been in the tenancy of another tenant namely Mr.A.P.Prabhakaran. He was close relative of the respondent herein. That Prabhakaran sub-let, assigned and parted with possession of this portion to the present respondent without the written consent of the petitioner. A petition of eviction against the said Mr.Prabhakaran had also been filed as the petitioner's requirement was of the complete first floor. His family consist of himself, his wife, two daughters and a son. When the petition was filed his eldest daughter was studying in first year of B.A.(Hons.), younger daughter was studying in 11th Class and son was studying in 5th class. His minimum requirement was of four rooms. The accommodation in his occupation was not sufficient to accommodate his entire family.