ANIL KUMAR JAUHAR Vs. ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 28th January 1986 whereby the Petitioners' eviction petition filed under Section 14(l)(c) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the ground of bona-fide personal need of the Petitioner No. I was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioners' case in the eviction petition in brief was that the Petitioner No. I who is the owner of the suit premises at 128 for Bagh, New Delhi required the premises for his bona fine personal need for his residence. Since the premises in question were constructed on a residential plot of land leased out by the President of India to Petitioner No. I by perpetual lease deed dated 13th May 1959 the construction was of purely residential nature. Though there was no written lease agreement between the Petitioners and the Respondent, the Respondent had represented at the time of taking the premises on rent that the Respondent would use the premises in dispute as a guest house for the officers of the company and it was so used in the beginning, however later on the Respondent started using it as an office. Thus, the petitioners filed a petition for eviction against the Respondent under Section 14(l)(k) of the Act being Suit No. E-538/76, On the i4th September 1978 the court of Suit. Manju Goel. Additional Rent Controller, Delhi ordered that the Respondent stops the misuser of the permises within 15 days of the order. The Land & Development Office, D.D.A. levied misuser charges against the Petitioners which were paid by the Petitioners but Safer reimbursed by the respondent. At the time the premises were let out to the Respondent, the Petitioner No. I was staying in a rented accommodation at 28 Babar Lane, however, in July 1977 an eviction order was passed against the petitioners. The Petitioners went in appeal against that eviction order before the Rent Control Tribunal. The eviction order was confirmed by order dated 16th April, 1980. The Petitioners thereafter filed a second appeal also which was dismissed. A special leave petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 30th October, 1980, however time was given to the petitioners to vacate the premises in Babar Lane upto 30th April, 1981. Since the Petitioner No. 1 had no other house to live, the mother of the petitioner No. 1 who is the owner of house No. 127, For Bagh. New Delhi gave her house to the Petitioner No. 1 temporarily as a licensee by getting her house vacated from the Hungarian Embassy to meet the urgent necessity of the patitioner No. 1 The mother of the petitioner No.1 does not have any independent income and is dependent on the income of the rent from 127 Jor Bagh, New Delhi for her livelihood. The Hungarian Embassy was paying her rent of Rs. 2700.00 per month, however in view of the petitioners necessity though the Hungarian Embassy was willing to increase the rent she allowed him to stay in that house temporarily on the undertaking that he will shift to his premises as soon as they are vacated. The petitioners, therefore, filed the present eviction petition under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act on 28th March 1981 against the respondent.

(3.) On an application for leave to defend filed by the respondent, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by order dated 14th August 1981 granted conditional leave. The case of the respondent was that the premises in question were let out for an office and were being used as such till the order dated 14th September 1978 was passed by the Court of Smt. Manju Goel, the then Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on a petition under Section 14 (l)(k) of the Act filed by the petitioners. The letting purpose being commercial the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act was not maintainable. That House No. 127 Jor Bagh, New Delhi though is shown in the name of the mother of the petitioner No. I, she is not the real owner because she is not doing any work and it is not correct, that the petitioner No. 1 was allowed to stay in that that house as a licensee. The petitioners have filed the petition only to pressurise the respondent to increase the rent. The prayer for eviction was mala fide inasmuch as the petitioners do not require the premises bonafide for their residence or for the residence of the family members dependant upon them as the petitioners own huge property of their own in Delhi. Since the petitioners had failed to obtain the eviction order under Section 14 (1)(k) of the Act the present eviction petition was filed mala fide because the rent in that area has gone up considerably.