RAJ MONGA Vs. O P MALIK RETD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the judgment dated 27th January, 1998 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi granting an Order of eviction from the tenanted premises bearing No. 1-A, 41-C, Second Floor, DDA Flats, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi-52 consisting of two bed rooms, one drawing room and dining room, lobby with one W.C. and one bath room, kitchen and open terrace. The family of respondent No. 1 comprises of himself, his wife, two sons and daughters-in-law and four grand children. The first son at the relevant time was posted in Indonesia and, it is stated, is presently posted in Singapore. The other son is an Army Officer. Respondent No. 1 himself retired as a Doctor in 1983 and was running a charitable clinic. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent is residing at Nahan in his own accommodation and, therefore, there is no need for him to move to Delhi. The respondent on the other hand has taken the plea that he wants to move to Delhi as he intends to live with his relatives who are mostly in Delhi in his old age. It has further been stated that the education of the grand children of the respondent is suffering and the premises are required bonafide for himself as well as for his family members dependent upon him. The matter was examined in detail and the parties led their respective evidence after leave to contest was granted and on appreciation of the evidence as well as on the basis of the material placed on record, the learned Additional Rent Controller came to a categorical finding that the need of the respondent as well as for the family members dependent upon him is bonafide and cannot be termed as false and fanciful.

(2.) The law is well settled that the landlord is the best Judge of his residential requirement and it is not open for the Court or for the petitioner-tenant to dictate .to him in what manner he should live or to prescribe to him aresidential standard of its own. This was so held in Prativa Devi (Smt) V. T.V. Krishna (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 353. Paragraph 2 of this judgment makes the following reading:

(3.) Similarly the Supreme Court has held in Sarla Ahuja V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 76 (1998) Delhi Law Times I in the following manner in paragraph 14 :-