HI NRED INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. RAVI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision is brought undersection 25-8(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the eviction order dated June 1, 1988 of Shri V. K.Jain, Additional Controller, made on the ground of eviction under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act.

(2.) . I have heard the arguments in detail at the time of admission. The findings of the Additional Controller that the respondents herein are the owners-landlords in respect of Property No. S-260, Panchshila Park, New Delhi and the said premises had been let out to the petitioner for residential purposes only and that the respondents are not in possession of any alternate reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi are not challenged before me. The finding of the Additional Controller that the respondents bona fide require the premises in question for occupation as residence for themselves and for their two sons is seriously contested.

(3.) . The facts, in brief, are that the respondent No. 1 and his wife respondent No. 2 were employed and were working at Sharjah, but respondent No. 1 had to resign his job as he developed some serious ailment and respondent No.2 also resigned her job. She is M.B.B.S. Both of them are Green Card Holders from United States of America and in 1984 they went to America and the case set up was that the respondents have now decided to live in Delhi permanently in the house in question. At the time of the filing of the petition, the,sons of the respondents were studying in Delhi but admittedly now they have been sent to United States of America for higher education. It is the case of the respondents that they have not taken any employment in America and they want to live in India. The Additional Controller believing the statement made by respondent No. 1 on oath held that the respondents have proved that they bona fide require the premises in question for their residence. The Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has vehemently argued that both the respondents hold Green Cards of U.S.A. which thould have led the Court to come to the conclusion that in fact they are not at all keen to settle in Delhi and the testimony of respondent No. 1 in Court that they wanted to live permanently in Delhi should not be believd when the factum of their holding greencards shows that they have the intention of living permanently in United States of America. The Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the various provisions of the United Status Code Service, Titles 8 to 9 pertaining to Aliens and Nationality and the provisions of American Jurisprudence, 2d, pertaining to the same subject in. order to show that the Green Cards are given by the United States of America to some special category of persons who have intention to live permanently in that country. The mere fact that the landlords have obtained the Green Cards in United States of America, which enabled them to live in America. without the necessity of their seeking frequent permission after expiry of some time, would not lead to any inference that they have no bona fide need to Come over to India and live in India. After all it was for the landlords to make up their minds as to where they would like to live in India. After all it was for the landlords to make up their minds as to where they to live and at one point of time they have for convenience sake obtained the Green Cards from the Government of United States of America would not throw any'doubt on the resolve made by them subsequently that they would like to live in their own country. it has been argued that if the landlords are to disclose their intention of living permanentely in india to the authorities in the United States of America, their green cards may be liable to be can. celled. The question which is necessary to be decided is whether they have taken a bona fide decision to live in India. The mere fact that their sons are receiving higher education in U.S.A. also does not, in my opinion, throw any doubt regarding the intention of the landlords to live in India in their own house. Neither the Court nor the tenant can dictate to the landlords not to come back to their own country and live in their own house No mala fide motive was imputed to the landlords to show that they have sought. eviction of the tenant for some utterior motive. The Additional Controller: has believed the testimony of petitioner No. 1 landlord, I see no reason to interfere. I find no merit in this Civil Revision which dismiss in limine.