R D AGGARWAL Vs. ARJUN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of eviction dated November 11, 1986 passed by Shri M.L. Mehta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, on the ground of bonafide requirement of accommodation for the landlady and her family members covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, has been challenged by the tenant in this civil revision.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the eviction order in arguments only on two grounds, firstly, that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that the landlady is not in possession of reasonably suitable residential accommodation is perverse and is liable to be set aside and secondly, that the landlady was guilty of suppressio veri inasmuch as she did not disclose the whole of the accommodation in her possession either in the pleadings or in the map filed alongwith the petition and thus, as the landlady has not come to the Court with clean bands, her claim for bonafide requirement was liable to be negatived on that score. The findings of the Additional Rent Controller that the landlady is the owner of the property in question and premises in possession of the tenant comprising of a room and a kitchen on the ground floor of House No. 35, Shri Nagar Colony, Bharat Nagar Road, Delhi, are let out for residential purposes only are not challenged before me.

(3.) I may mention that alongwith the civil revision the petitioner-tenant has moved an application for leading additional evidence in the shape of a map of the house in question. In agreement with the counsel for the parties, I appointed Mr.I.C. Sudhir, Advocate, as Local Commissioner to visit the property in question and give complete picture of the property. He has filed the report and the same was not challenged. The family of the landlady comprise of herself, her son, son's wife and a grandson. Presently the four grand-daughters of the landlady admittedly are married and out of them two are living out of India and one is living at Agra and the fourth, who was married during the pendency of the case, is living in Delhi. There is no dispute regarding the number of family members of the landlady residing in the house in question. The whole of the house comprises of three shops which open on the roadside which are in possession of tenants since long and besides the petitioner, there is another tenant Harish who is occupying one room and a kitchen and he is also an old tenant although be came in the premises after the petitioner bad become a tenant. The landlady is in possession of three regular rooms which have been marked as A,B & C in the map filed on the record now with the report of the Local Commissioner which is admitted as correct by counsel for both the parties. It is not disputed that one room is needed by the landlady herself and another room is needed by the landlady's married son and son's wife and the third room is needed for the grandson, who was college student at the time of filing of the petition and is now aged about 24 years and is likely to be married soon. The case of the landlady was that she is using one room as drawing-cum-dining room and two rooms on the ground floor as bed rooms. The case of the tenant, on the other band, was that there is another room marked 'D' now in the map aforesaid which is being used as drawing-cum-dining room. However, it is asserted by counsel for the respondent that the said marked 'D' is not a room at all and is a verandab. The report of the Local Commissioner shows that the said accommodation is not a room but is a Verandah because on the southern side there is no wall in this accommodation and on the western side again there is not a complete wall. At any rate, it is quite clear that mark 'D' is not a room Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the landlady could by raising a well on the southern side convert this particular Verandah into a room. Counsel for the petitioner forgets that the three regular rooms marked 'A', 'B' & 'C' all open in this very verandah and if the wall is put in on the southern side of this accommodation it would block the flow of air and light atleast to room marked 'C'. It is not for the tenant to show as to how a particular accommodation avaliable to the landlord should be used by the landlord. The fact remains that this particular accommodation marked 'D' is obviously a verandah and cannot be used as a regular room. Hence, it cannot be held that the landlady is in possession of four rooms on the ground floor. Even counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that immediate requirement of the landlady and her family members is four rooms although the Additional Rent Controller also, in my opinion rightly, was of the view that for visiting married daughters off and on, one more room is needed by the landlady for comfortable living. Still ignoring the need of the visiting married daughters, the Additional Rent Controller upheld the claim of bonafide requirement of the landlady holding that the bare need of the landlady is of four rooms and she being in possession of only three rooms, so the accommodation already in possession of the landlady cannot be considered to be reasonably suitable.