TRILOK CHAND Vs. GOVARDHAN LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 16th October 1985 in suit No. E-47/84 whereby the petition for eviction filed by the petitioner under-Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Act was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner-landlord of house No. 44, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi and the respondent is a tenant of one room and verandah in this house. The premises were let out to the respondent for residential purposes and the petitioner filed the petition for eviction on the ground that the same were required by the petitioner for himself and for the members of his family dependent on him which consisted of himself, his wife and four children aged 12 years, 10 years, 5 years and 3 years. It was contended in the petition that the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and since the accommodation in his occupation is not sufficient for him and his children, the requires the premises occupied by the respondent for his bonafide personal use. The respondent was granted leave to defend to the petition. The respondent denied the ownership of the petitioner and also claimed that the premises were let out both, for residential-cum-commercial purposes. He further contended in his written statement that there was sufficient accommodation available with the petitioner in as much as six rooms in the house in dispute were in his possession. The adjoining house which belongs to the father of the petitioner is occupied by other family members and contended that the petitioner has been filed with mala fide intention in order to harras the respondent to increase the rent.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner denies that the two rooms and the shop had fallen vacant in the year 1983 even assuming it is correct there is nothing unnatural if the petitioner has given the premises to his brother for their use. Simply because the rooms were given to the brothers, it cannot be said that the need of the petitioner was not bonafide. Learned counsel submitted that the petition for eviction was filed in the year 1984 i.e. much after the rooms and the shop were occupied by the brothers of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that after having rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner and his family members were in occupation of only two rooms and that the petitioner had no other residential accommodation available, the learned Additional Rent Controller committed serious irregularity of law in attributing malafides to the petitioner on this sole ground particularly when the accommodation given to the brothers was not for any monetary consideration but because of their near relationship.