VICKERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. BAIRA MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Balraj Metha, Assistant Fire Advisor, Ministry of Defence built a house, C-3, Defence Colony, New Delhi with Government loan. He rented it to M/s Vickers Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1966 for residential purposes. That was also a condition stated in sub clause (d) of clause (1) of the lease deed. It appears that at that time he was stationed in Simla and also needed rental income to repay the loan. When in 1968 he was transferred back to Delhi, he began to live with his parents in Nizarnuddin East. They had 3 rooms, I Barsati, I kitchen, I bath and I latrine, while the members of the family comprised the parents, his brother, two married sisters, himself, his. wife and two sons. That accommodation was insufficient for the requirements of the family and Mehta with his growing children was finding it difficult to live comfortably in East Nizamuddin. Meanwhile, he came to be promoted as Fire Advisor in the Ministry of Home Affairs in the scale of Rs. 1,800-2,250 and was also able to repay the loan incurred in the construction of the house. He filed an application for eviction of the house on 17, 1975 under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 on the ground of bona fide requirement. Pending the decision of the application he had to move into some rented premises in East of Kailash. The application was ultimately rejected by the learned Additional Rent Controller on June 3, 1978 on the ground that the landlord failed to prove that the premises in dispute were let for residential purposes a id that the house in Nizamuddin where he was residing did not belong to him and that it was not a reasonably suitable alternative accommodation. He further failed to prove that he required the premises in question bona fide for his residence or that of his family members. The Nizamuddin house was a 2 storyed building. He was in occupation of the first floor alongwith his parents. The ground floor of the said premises meanwhile had fallen vacant but he did not shift to that floor. An Appeal against the said order is pending. And yet he moved the present application on September 1, 1979 under Section 25-B of the Act more or less on the same facts without disclosing that he had already lost an earlier one. He stated that his family consisted of himself his wife and 2 sons. The elder son was 19 years studying at present in Khadakwasla and another son is of 17 years. He had two married daughters who often visit him. The tenants applied for leave to contest the application. The contentions which the tenants raised were that they had a right to use the premises for office purposes as well as residence and that they were so used was also in the knowledge of the landlord from the very beginning. The tenants upon demand raised the rent from Rs. 575 to Rs. 600 and again increased it by Rs. 150 in the year 1973. As a matter of fact, the landlord did not require the premises but his aim was to secure further increase of rent. It was also stated that only on June 1978, his claim for bonafide requirement had been rejected and without any change of circumstances, the situation could not take a turn in his favour in the three months that had gone by. The landlord shifted to rented accommodation in order to establish that his need for the disputed premises was genuine. The learned Additional Rent Controller found that there was no force in any of the grounds raised, and directed eviction by his order of December 2, 1978. Hence this revision.

(2.) Section 25-B lays down that the Controller shall give leave to contest if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession. Such facts should raise a triable issue and should not raise frivolous and sham defences. There is no doubt that the premises were let for residential purpose and even if the tenants are using them for office purpose as well, that itself is not going to alter the initial purpose of letting. The landlord is a Government servant on the verge of retirement and the Nizamuddin house belongs to his father and certainly falls short of the genuine requirements of the family. The previous dismissal of the application does not operate as res judicata and the very fact that on account of insufficiency of accommodation and a rise in status the landlord had to shift to rented premises establishes the need to be genuine. No doubt, the tenants have been raising the rent from Rs. 575 to Rs. 650 and then to Rs. 800, but that does not establish that in demanding eviction, the sole aim of the landlord is to secure further raise in rent. The learned Additional Rent Controller, therefore, was correct in holding that the tenants had failed to raise any triable issue and to disclose such facts as would disentitle the landlord to succeed. It is true that at this stage the Rent Controller cannot go into evidence but upon the very facts stated in the affidavit, it is obvious that nothing has been shown by the tenants which would disentitle tlie landlord from seeking recovery of possession.

(3.) I, therefore, do not find there is anything which is not in accordance with law in the impugned order, and dismiss the revision petition. There will be no order as to costs.