LAL CHAND KHANNA Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's petition under proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 25-B, of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 assailing the order of eviction, The principal question that it raised was as to the liability of the tenant to eviction merely on the ground that the premises at present available to owners, though otherwise sufficient for their requirements having regard to the extent of the accommodation and of the family, was nevertheless insufficient, because on account of strained relations between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law, a separate unit in the premises could not be provided for a branch of the family. Certain subsequent event have to an extent changed the context in which the order was made and have thrown up an additional problem as to their effect and the course to be followed in the changed circumstances.

(2.) The property, in which the premises in dispute is situated is jointly owned by the mother, principal of a government school and her two sons and two daughters. The elder son and his wife are both doctors and have two young children. The tenant occupies the first floor of the property while the ground floor has been in the occupation of the owners. The accommodation available with the owners at the relevant time consisted of three bed rooms, a drawing room, averandab, a dining room, which is devided into two portions which serves as a kitchen and a store. There is an additional accommodation, may be available by another tenant, consisting of a kichen and a store measuring 9' x 9' and 9'x7' respectively. Eviction was sought on the ground of insufficiency of accomodation, having regard to the extent of the family, as also on the additional ground that on account of strained relations between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law, the elder son and his branch must have an independent unit which was not possible in view of the existing accommodation available to the owners. During the pendency of the petition, one of the daughters was married. The plea of eviction on the ground of insufficiency of accommodation was not seriously pressed and in any event, the Addl, Rent Controller found that the accommodation could not be said to be insufficient having regard to the extent of the family and the real controversy before the Additional Rest Controller has been whether the eviction could be justified on the ground of compulsion arising out of strained relations between the mother and the dughter-in-law, necessitating a separate unit for the elder elder son and his dependants. Plea for eviction prevalied on the ground that the strained relations entitled the family to provide fora separate unit, which was not possible in the existing accomodation out of the portion vacated by another tenant sometime back was, however repelled on the ground that that accommodation consisted only of a kitchen and a store and the doctor couple and the children-deserved better accommodation having regard to their status.

(3.) At the hearing of the the petition, it was not seriously disputed on behalf of the owners that for but for the strained relations the accomodation available with the owners was adequate for their requirement, particularly having regard to an admitted subsequent event of the second daughter also having been married away, even though the other son of marriageable age and was likely to be married in the near future. The real question in controversy between the parties has, therefore, been if the eviction could be justified merely with reference to the compulsion arising out of strained relations between the mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law and consequential need to provide an independent unit During the pendency of the petition, certain other events made a substantial change, in the context in that the elder son and his wife left India for a long foreign in a foreign country, the son on an assignment said to be at present for two years, and the wife, though retaining her service in India, probably for the same period, party to be able to stay with her husband and partly on account of medical treatment. Parties were, however, at variance as to the precise period during which the couple would be away from the country, as also the real purpose of the wife's departure. It was, however, not disputed that the son had sold away his car before leaving the country. His wife also left with him though retaining her link with her present employer in India. It was also not seriously disputed that their two children remained in India with the rest of the family and would perhaps pursue their studies during the absence of their parents under the supervision of their grand-mother. Two subsequent events were sought to be pressed into service on behalf of the owners in that one of the married daughters had come to stay with the family and that the other son, having established himself in business, was likely to be manrried shortly and negotiations in that behalf had taken place. It was, however, not disputed that married daughter, who had come to stay with the family during her confinement, had since delivered herself of a baby and returned to her in-laws. The likelihood of the other son getting married was not seriosuly disputed, although, fortunately for the family, no suggestion has been made that the marriage of the second son was likely to create further dissension in the family.