K D NAGRATH Vs. NEENA SARNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the dismissal of eviction petition, which was filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, by petitioner who is a Doctor at present residing in United Kingdom. The eviction petition was filed in the year 1994. Leave to contest was granted to respondent No. 3. The Additional Rent Controller dismissed the petition of the landlord on the ground that the requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide. It was held that the petitioner was owner. It was also held that the premises were let out for residential purposes. There is no dispute with regard to the extent of accommodation available with the petitioner in the demised premises. The accommodation available to the petitioner is two bed rooms with attached bath room, kitchen and drawing room and open verandah in the front and rear on the ground floor and one Barsati room on the terrace. The tenant is in occupation of the first floor. The reason for not believing the petitioner according to Additional Rent Controller was that the requirement qua his son, his wife, married daughters, real bothers and sisters, relatives of the wife, widowed sister Smt, Kamla Devi and guests could not be proved and petitioner was only successful in proving that he needed the accommodation for himself. Additional Rent Controller went a step further and also held in the following words :

(2.) There was a specific averment made that the premises were also required for Smt. Kamla Devi, widowed sister of the petitioner as she would be also living with the petitioner. Additional Rent Controller disbelieved and held that the requirement of the petitioner and his wife to have more accommodation on the first floor was not genuine and bona fide. Mr. Rohtagi has contended that the petitioner is 68 years old. He has been working in National Health Scheme in Britain and after 68 years of age he is entitled for retirement, he is to shift to India and this is the only house which is available for his accommodation. He has further contended that before the Additional Rent Controller, although the petitioner was not required to give any undertaking, however, in order to prove his bona flde the petitioner gave an undertaking that throughout his life-time he will not sell this property and he will stay in the house. He further stated that six passports were filed before the Additional Rent Controller to demonstrate that the petitioner was visiting India at least 2 to 3 times in a year and he had his roots in this country and he wanted to shift to India bona fidely. Therefore, the life style to which he is used to live in UK, he would like to live in his own house where he can use some space for his practice and other rooms for his own abode.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that it was a case of creation of artificial scarcity created by the petitioner as no passport of the wife was filed nor wife's testimony was recorded before the Additional Rent Controller. He further stated that the accommodation available on the ground floor was sufficient for the petitioner. He has contended that the petitioner miserably failed to make out a case for additional accommodation.