ARJUN AHUJA Vs. S C MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the judgment dated 6th October, 1988 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The petition for eviction of the respondent was allowed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and the petitioner was granted six months time to vacate the tenanted premises.

(2.) The petitioner became a tenant of the respondent on 12th April, 1979 and the premises were let out under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. The property comprises of ground floor flat (D.D.A.) No.187, Pocket No. 14, Block-C-4C, Janak Puri, New Delhi consisting of one drawing room, two bed rooms, kitchen, one bathroom and lavatory with open space. Admittedly the premises were let out for residential purposes and the petition was filed as the respondent required the same bonafide for himself and for other family members dependent upon him. The family of the petitioner consists of his wife, son, two daughters and aged mother. The respondent landlord was employed with National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) Lucknow and it was alleged that he was likely to be transferred to Delhi shortly. The learned Additional Rent Controller assessed the need of the respondent and gave the following findings:-

(3.) The respondent may be posted out of Delhi but the plea taken by him that the premises are required to settle his family members in Delhi cannot be faulted and the desire to do so cannot be termed as a fake and fanciful as it is well settled that it will be open for the respondent landlord to make his own choice and it will not be for the petitioner tenant to contend that the premises are not required bonafide for use of the respondent and his family members on the short ground that he is posted out of Delhi. The landlord is the best judge of his requirement and he is entitled to make his decision in this regard. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Prativa Devi (Smt) v.T.V.Krishnan (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 353 has categorically held that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and he has the complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the findings as recorded by the Additional Rent Controller.