LAWS(DLH)-1988-7-17

SITA NAGPAL Vs. VINOD KUMAR NIJHAWAN

Decided On July 18, 1988
SITA NAGPAL Appellant
V/S
VINOD KUMAR NIJHAWAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. challenging the eviction order dated September 22, 1987, of Shri M.S. Sabharwal, Additional Rent Controller, made on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Senior Counsel who argued the case on behalf of the petitioners-tenants has challenged the eviction order on the following points, firstly, that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that premises in question is proved to have been let out for residential purposes only is perverse inasmuch as the Additional Rent Controller has approached the case in an illegal manner by not placing the burden of proof on the landlord to prove that in fact, the premises had been let out for residential purposes only and that he committed grave illegality in discussing the evidence of the parties on uneven scales. It has been urged that a yard-stick adopted by the Controller in assessing the evidence of the petitioners was completely different from the yard-stick adopted by him in appraising the evidence of the landlord-respondent; secondly, that the Aditional Rent Controller was wrong in negativing the plea of the petitioners regarding non maintainability of the eviction petition inasmuch a previous eviction petition had been dismissed in default on the same ground in 1981 and there had occurred no change in the circumstances of the landlord entitling him to set up the ground of bonafide requirement for residence afresh; and thirdly, that the Additional Rent Controller grave wrong finding that the landlord bonafide requires the demised premises for occupation as residence for himself and for his family members dependent upon him and he was not in possession of reasonably suitable alternate accommodation. It was urged that there was no evidence that the accommodation already in possession of the landlord-respondent was not suitable to him inasmuch as be had no legal right to occupy the said accommodation and the said property belonged to his brother who had asked him to vacate the premises when the said brother was not examined as a witness to prove that he had required the respondent-landlord to vacate the premises. Point No. 1:

(3.) This property in question originally belongnd to the Custodain and Inder Nath Nagpal, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners being the husband of petitioner No 1-Smt.Sita Nagpal and father of the petitioner No. 2 Vinod Nagpal, had occupied the said premises as a displaced person from Pakistan and he was said to be the tenant of the Custodian at the rental of Rs. 25.00 per mensem since 1948 or 1949. Admittedly, this property was sold by the Government to one Madan Lal and Madan Lal had sold this property to the respondent-landlord vide sale deed dated September 30, 1977, copy of which is Ex.AW1/ 1.So by operation of law Inder Nath Nagpal became tenant admittedly under the respondent landlord on same terms and conditions on which he was holding the premises under Custodain. No fresh contract of tenancy had taken place between Inder the Nagpal and the subsequent purchasers including the respondent-landlord. It was pleaded in the eviction petition itself that the premises in question comprising of three rooms, verandah, latrine and bath on the first floor and a wooden rooms with open place on the second floor and house No.l557(), Church Road Kashmere Gate, Delhi, stood let out to Inder Nath Nagpal for residential purposes. In the written statement it was pleaded that in fact, the premises are residential-cum-commercial and from the very inception of the tenancy Inder Nath Nagpal had been using the said premises for having his office of his Cafe busineses besides using the premises for residential purposes. It was pleaded that the premises are still being used for the said office purposes of the said Cafe and a school in the name of Rama Rrishna Sewa Ashram was also being run for giving tutorial in the premises in question from the very inception of the tenancy and the same have been also used for running a homoeopathic dispensary. It was contended by Mr. L.R. Gupta, senior counsel for the respondentlandlord. that in whole of the written statement there was no specific clear denial of the avernment made in the eviction petition the premises had been let out to Inder Nath Nagpal in the beginning for residential purpose only. He has vehemently argued that in absence of any specific denial of this particular averment in the written statement it should be inferred that there is an implied admission in the written statement that premises had been let out for residential purpose only. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioners has argued that reading the whole of the written statement should lead to an inference that the petitioners had set up the plea that the premises had not been let out for residential purposes only when they plead that the premises are residential-cum-commercial and have been used for said composite purposes from the very inception of the tenancy, if the pleadings are to be strictly construed, then is merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord. It has been held in Ration Lal v. Vardesh Chander & Others, (1976) 8 RCR 355, that in rent control proceedings the pleadings are not to be construed strictly So. I would construe the written statement to hold that in facts, the petitioners have controverted the plea of the respondent-landlord that premises had been let out for residential purposes only.