K B MATHUR Vs. SARDAR BHAGWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') against order dated February 7, 1986 of Shri D.K. Saini, Additional Rent Controller, by which he has dismissed the eviction petition brought by the petitioners on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence as covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.

(2.) The present eviction petition was brought on May 15, 1980, by Shri K.B.Mathur and his son Shri R.B.Mathur on the averments that two rooms, kitchen, bath & toilet as shown in the plan filed alongwith the petition, were let out to SardarBhagwantSinghonMayl3,1975, under an oral agreement at the rental of Rs. 500.00 per month for residential purposes and the two petitioners, being the owners and landlords of this property No. 18-Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, in which the tenancy premises are located on the first floor required the said premises bonafide for residence for themselves and for the family members dependant upon them and they have no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Bhagwant Singh had died during the pendency of the proceedings and his widow Smt. Ishar Kaur was substituted as legal representative. In the original eviction petition it was pleaded that petitioner No. 1 is a retired Chairman the of Railway Board and is presently director of eight companies which were enumerated in the petition and he had been also Chairman of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited from 1960 to 1965 and Chairman of Hindustan Machine Tools from 1965 to 1968 and Chairman of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Corporation in the year 1967 and Chairman of Triveni Structurals for the year 1966-67 and is also a trustee of Thapar Charitable Trust. Calcutta, and is assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax and being director of eight companies, he has to have conferences, meetings and consultations with the officials of the various eight companies at this house and he feels dire necessity of having at least two separate rooms for himself. It was mentioned that accommodation available for residence to the petitioners is only one drawing-cum-dining room, two bed rooms of which one is used by petitioner No. 1 himself and the other by his wife, one small pooja room, one pantry, bath room and W.C., Verandah and courtyard. It was pleaded that the petitioner has only two sons, namely, petitioner No. 2-R.B. Mathur and one K.C. Mathur. R.B. Mathur is stated to be a Class I Officer being a Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, at the time of filing the petition, was posted outside Delhi and he has one daughter and one son and the said daughter was to come to Delhi for further studies after completing her school education in Kotah and she would be needing a separate room for sleeping and for her studies. The son of petitioner No. 2 was also to be of marriageable age and his marriage was also to be performed at the premises in question. It was also mentioned that the second son of petitioner No. 1 KC. Mathur is the General Manager of Rtanakar Shipping, Calcutta, and Director of Hindustan Times and Neel Giri Tea Estates and his grandson Vivek Mathur is also to come to Delhi for studying in College, and would be needing a separate room.

(3.) It was emphasized that petitioners 1 & 2 and their families are persons of high status and are accustomed to high standard of living and petitioner No. 1's married daughter and her children also quite often visit the petitioners at the premises in question and various other guests also come and stay for short periods and as petitioner and his wife are aged persons, their married daughter, who is living in Delhi, has to visit them quite often and occasionally spends her weekends with them and petitioner No. 2, having a transferable job, has to face the transfer every two or three years, which results in disturbing the academic career of his children necessitating that the children should come to Delhi and stay at the house, so also his wife so that his daughter could receive good education at Delhi. It was also mentioned that the goods of petitioner No. 2 are also kept in Delhi and the second son of the petitioner and his family also visit quite often on official tours Delhi and stay with them.