DARSHAN GARG Vs. KISHAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision petition under Section 25-B(8)of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the landlord for setting aside thejudgment dated 28/08/1985, of Shri Ajit Bharihoke, Additional RentController, Delhi, by which he dismissed the eviction petition brought bythe petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence coveredby clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent ControllerAct (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The findings of the Additional Rent Controller that the petitioneris the landlord co-owner of the property in question and the premises whichcomprises of only one room one the ground floor of house No. 9/6544, GaliNo. 2, Dev Nagar, New Delhi stands let out to the respondent-tenant forresidential purposes only are not disputed before me. It is also indeed notdisputed that the family of the petitioner comprises of herself, her husbandand four daughters out of whom one stands married during the pendencyof the eviction case and admittedly is presently residing with her husbandin Delhi. The other three daughters of this petitioner at the time of thefiling of the petition were studying in 10th, 7th and 3rd classes. The petitionwas filed in May 1983. said daughters have now grown in ages and are agednow 20, 25 and 12 years respectively The married daughter is now agedabout 24 years. It was also not disputed before me that there is an almostinhabitable tin-shed measuring about 4' X 5' at the top floor of the housewhich cannot be treated as a room. Ex. A1 is the map of the property inquestion and admittedly the petitioner and her family members are inpossession of the whole of the first floor comprising of two bed rooms ofaverage size and portion of the ground floor comprising of drawing roommeasuring 13'-6"X9' and a covered verandah measuring 13'-6"X6'-10"besides kitchen, bath and W.C. Respondent is the only tenant in the housein a room marked 'A' on the ground floor which has separate entrancefrom the back lane. Respondent has been the tenant in the said room since1945. The petitioner became owner of this property in the year 1975. Inthe eviction petition the petitioner pleaded that she needed one separatebed room for her eldest daughter and another bed room for the otherthree daughters and one bed room for her husband and herself and thereis no dining room available and the petitioner's husband, being Manager(Accounts) in a reputed company, namely, Usha International Limited, hasto hold meetings in the house with different officials and thus, there is nosufficient reasonably suitable accommodation available to the petitionerand her family members dependent on her for residence purpose. Thelearned Additional Rent Controller after recording the evidence gave afinding that the petitioner and her family members are La possession ofreasonably suitable residential accommodation and thus, he negatived theground of eviction. There was not present any iota of convincing evidenceon the record that the petition had been brought actuated by any malafidereasons. The petitioner had become owner-landlady of the respondent since1975 but she brought this eviction petition only in June 1983. Earlier herdaughters were young, the petitioner did not think of setting up this groundof bonafide requirement for residence. It is not the case of the respondentthat any other litigation was brought by the petitioner to put pressure onthe respondent to vacate the premises earlier. Even the Additional RentController has not given any finding that the petitioner had demandedany increase in rent from the respondent at any time or the petitioner hadany intention of selling the property in question after getting it vacatedfrom the respondent; rather the statement of the petitioner's husband, whoappeared as attorney of the petitioner, as AW4, that petitioner and herfamily members have no other house in Delhi had remained unchallenged.It was really far-fetched plea taken by the respondent that the petitionerhas intention of selling the property in question. Even the learned counselfor the respondent did not advance any arguments imputing any malafideto the petitioner inifiling the eviction petition. His contention has beenthat the petitioner and her family members are in possession of reasonablysuitable accommcdation and thus, the petitioner does not require bonafidethe premises in question at all and in that way the petition for eviction onthe ground of bonafide requirement for residence is malafide. He has alsocontended that since the petitioner's eldest daughter has been married andis living with her husband, the need of the married daughter could not beat all looked into. in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in Sat Pal v.Nand Kishore, 1983 Rajdhani Law Reproter 19. He has argued that he isaware that in some other cases decided by this Court (all of Single Bench) aview has been expressed that need of the married daughters, who often visittheir parents, has to be taken into consideration while assessing the requirement of the landlord for more accommodation. So, he has stressed that asthere is conflict of law present on this point, the matter should be referredto the larger Bench for having an authoritative view on this point.

(3.) It is true that in the eviction petition the petitioner did plead thatone bed room would suffice for her three daughters but in evidence theattorney and husband of the petitioner made a categorical statement withregard to the ages of the daugthers at the time of making the statementand he deposed that at least two bed rooms are needed for three daughtersout of whom two have grown up. It is also well settled law that change incircumstances of the landlord's family during the pendency of the evictioncase can be looked into in order to assess the requirement of the landlord formore accommodation. At the time of filing of the eviction petition the pleawas taken by the landlady that one bed room was sufficient for threedaughters but that is not conclusive as with the passage of time the needto have more bed rooms for grown up daughters has to be given dueimportance. So, even if for the sake of arguments, the need of the marrieddaughter is not taken into consideration even then the fact remains thatnow the landlady does require one bed room for herself and her husband andanother bed room for one of the grown up daughters and another bedroom for the other two daughters. The grown up daughters do need exclusiveaccommodation not only for use as bed rooms, but for carrying on theirstudies as well. So, there is immediate need of the landlady for having threebed rooms when admittedly the landlady is in possession of only two bedrooms. The covered verandah which also serves as a passage to theprawing room obviously cannot be used as a bed room The tin-shed on thetop floor also is not capable of being used as a bed room. So, the AdditionalRent Controller was not right in holding that the petitioner landlady and herfamily members are in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation. TheAdditional Rent Controller gave this finding ingnoring the subsequent eventsof the three daughters having grown in ages since the filing of the evictionpetition and he also did not care to give importance to the statement ofpetitioner's husband with regard to the necessity of having atleast twobed rooms for the three daughters out of whom two have already grown up.