Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 520 (DEL)

BISHAN LAL BHALLA v. ARJUN RIJHSINGHANI

1991-09-23

S.N.SAPRA

body1991
S. N. Sapra, J. ( 1 ) BY the present revision petition, filed under proviso to Sub-Section 8 of Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, theowner/ landlord, petitioner herein, seeks to challenge the impugned order dated May 6, 1988, passed by Shri V. K. Jain, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, whereby, his petition for eviction of tenant, respondent berein, was dismissed. ( 2 ) PETITIONER is the owner of a double storey house, bearing municipal No. B-18, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. The portions, on the ground floor and first floor of the premises are identical in the year 1975, petitioner lot out to respondent, the entire first floor, in the said premises, on the payment of Rs. 1,000 as rent, per mensem. As, the tenanted premises were required by petitioner, bonafide for the use as residence, for himself and the members of his family, dependent upon him, so petitioner filed a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) and 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, for eviction of respondent. ( 3 ) THE Additional Kent Controller, by the impugned order, dismissed the petition, and held that petitioner did not require the premises in question, bonafide for occupation, as residence and that the accommodation available with him, was sufficient to meet his need and that of the members of his family. ( 4 ) AFTER the conclusion of arguments by learned counsel for parties, judgment was reserved. ( 5 ) ON August 29, 1991, Shri Arjun Rijhsinghani, respondent herein, made a statement on oath and admitted the bonafide requirement of petitioner and members of his family, with regard to premises in question, in his occupation. Respondent also prayed that he be allowed time up to August 31, 1993, by which he would vacate the premises, i. e. No. E-18, Ist Floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi, and band over the vacant and peaceful possession in the same to petitioner. ( 6 ) THE tenant/respondent herein also gave undertaking to the Court that he would vacate the premises by 31st August, 1993. ( 7 ) THE tenant also agreed that the revision petition be allowed, in terms of the statement and on account of his undertaking and that the order of eviction be passed, under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. ( 7 ) THE tenant also agreed that the revision petition be allowed, in terms of the statement and on account of his undertaking and that the order of eviction be passed, under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. ( 8 ) STATEMENT of Shri Bishan Lal Bhalla was also recorded and he agreed that in case, the order of eviction is passed, same shall not be executed prior to 31st August, 1993. He also accepted the statement of the tenant and prayed that order, in terms of the undertaking be passed. ( 9 ) I am of the view that the Learned Additional Rent Controller, has not dealt with the need and bonafide of petitioner objectively. I am also of the view that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller, that the petitioner did not require the premises in question bonafide, or that the acommodation available with him was sufficient to meet his need, is not correct and cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) INDEPENDENT of the consent and undertaking, given by respondent that the order of eviction be passed against him, under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act, I am myself satisfied, on the basis of the evidence, produced on record that the demised/tenanted premises are required bonafide by petitioner, for the use as residence for himself and the members of his family, dependent upon him. I am also satisfied that the accommodation available with petitioner is not sufficient to meet his need and requirement. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, I hold that the demised premises are required bonafide by petitioner, as residence for himself and the members of his family, dependent upon him and that the accommodation available with him, is not sufficient to meet his requirement. I am fortified on this view, by the admission of respondent that the petitioner s requirements are bonafide and that the order of eviction be passed. ( 12 ) I accept the undertaking, given by respondent to the Court that he would vacate the premises by 31st August, 1993, and go on paying rent/ damages regularly, by 10th day of each English Calendar month. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, and for the reasons stated above, I allow the civil revision No. 407 of 1988 and set aside the impugned order dated May 6, 1988. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, and for the reasons stated above, I allow the civil revision No. 407 of 1988 and set aside the impugned order dated May 6, 1988. I pass an order of eviction in favour of petitioner and against respondent, on the ground, covered by Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, in respect of the premises, i. e. the entire first floor of House No. E-18, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. I further direct that the eviction order shall not be executed prior to August 31, 1993. Respondent shall be bound by his undertaking, given to the Court, which I have accepted. Revision allowed.