KANWAR BEHARI Vs. VINDHYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Vindhya Devi, landlady of the premises in dispute, filed an application for eviction of Kanwar Behari, tenant, on the ground that she required the premises bona fide for her own use and occupation. The Additional Rent Controller passed an order on 13th March, 1964, for eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the ground that the premises were bona fide required for residence of the landlady and her husband. There is no discussion in the Additional Rent Controller's order about the sole question, elaborately discussed before us, but from one observation made by the Additional Rent Controller it does appear that an argument was raised on behalf of the tenant that the landlady and her husband could not bona fide need such a large accommodation, as is provided by the premises in dispute. Aggrieved by the Additional Rent Controller's decision, the tenant filed an appeal and the Rent Control tribunal held that the needs of the landlady and her husband alone were to be considered as their son was not dependant on them. The Tribunal also considered the question of the extent of accommodation required by the landlady and said:

(2.) THE matter came up before me sitting alone, and I thought that the question whether under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, a landlord is entitled to a decree against his tenant for the recovery of the entire premises, even if bona fide requirement within the meaning of Clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 has been established only for a part of the premises, is an important question likely to arise in many cases, and should, therefore, be heard by a larger Bench. This is how the matter has come before us for disposal.

(3.) THE sole contention urged on behalf of the tenant is that the premises in dispute consist of eight rooms besides other amenities, and the whole of it cannot be bona fide required by the landlady, whose family consists of herself and her husband only; the suggestion being that in these circumstances the Court should direct eviction only from such part of the premises as is reasonably required for residence of the landlady and her dependent member of the family. Reliance has been placed on four decisions of this Court, namely, (1) Moti Lal v. Nanak Chand, 1964-66 Pun LR 179, (2) Gian Chand v. Miss S. Sanyal (Civil (Revn. No. 531-D of 1961 dated 16-11-1964 (Punj.) (3) Suraj Mal v. Salek Chand, Civil Revn. No. 560-D of 1958 dated 17-5-1960 (Punj.) and (4) Smt. Raj Rani v. Jagan Nath, Civil Revn. No. 49-D of 1960 dated 24-5-1960 (Punj ).