V S SACHDEVA Vs. M L GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has raised two important questions of law namely :

(2.) Petitioner sought eviction of the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement from the portion shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition including the entire ground floor and the portion shown in green as well as in red colour in the site plan. Basically eviction was sought because accommodation in possession of the petitioner was highly insufficient. The petitioner shifted to Delhi from Dhanbad. He had no other accommodation available except the house in question. He shifted with his family to Delhi and started living in part of this house. His family consists of eight members i.e. he himself, an old man of 60 years, his wife, his married son, daughter-in-law, grand daughter, another married son, daughter-in-law and his daughter. Accommodation in his possession consists of a room on the ground floor, a room above the second floor on the garage block, the front was common. Petitioner had given on rent to the respondent only the portion shown in red colour in the site plan consisting of two rooms, drawing-dining, kitchen, lavatory, back courtyard on the ground floor. However, this respondent forcibly trespassed into part of the green portion as well as the room on the garage block on the second floor and the room on the ground floor and locked the garage. Civil litigation was started by the respondent. His application for injunction was dismissed. Application filed by the petitioner was allowed. In appeal preferred by the respondent it was agreed that without prejudice to the contentions of the parties, room on the second floor above the garage block would continue to be in exclusive possession of the petitioner herein and the room on the ground floor would not be interfered by this petitioner. The accommodation in possession of the petitioner consisting of one room and a small store with a bath room on the first floor and a room on the second floor referred to in the map as servant quarter, petitioner has been forced to live in the servant quarter. Thus the respondent for the purpose of this petition was treated as tenant of the portion shown red colour and red and green colour in the map. It was in this background that petitioner sought eviction. He had no other suitable residential accommodation available to him in Delhi. He needed minimum four bed rooms beside drawing and dining room and a visitors room. He also needed two rooms in the garage block for the use and occupation of servant and Driver as he was a man of means.

(3.) This petition was contested by the respondent on merits. The Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) after accepting the petitioner to be the owner of the premises accepting letting purpose to be residential, dismissed the petition on the following two grounds, namely :-