Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 832 (DEL)

O. P. GUPTA v. R. K. SHARMA

2000-09-19

MADAN B.LOKUR

body2000
Madan B. Lokur ( 1 ) THE Petitioneris aggrieved by an order dated 29/07/1995 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissing his eviction petition. ( 2 ) THE Petitioner had filed an eviction petition under the provisions of Cause (e) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rentcontrol Act, 1958. It was his claim that he required the suit premises bonafide for his residence and for the residence of the members of his family. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller was of the view that the petitioner (who is settled in Ambala) had not been able to make out any case that he actually requires to shift to Delhi. It was also held that the petitioner had not. disclosed that he was the co-owner of property bearing No. 6/53, W. E. A. , Karol Bagh, New Delhi and as such he was guilty of suppression of a material fact. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the parties made their submissions on 13/09/2000 when judgment was reserved. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner s wife was suffering from epilepsy and some other ailments and that she was being treated in g. B. Pant Hospital in Delhi for the last several years. He submitted that the Petitioner wanted to shift to Delhi because of his wife s illness and that this was a genuine need. It was also the contention of learned Counsel that the Petitioner retired as a Regional labour Commissioner and wanted to settle down in Delhi and start his practice as an advocate specialising in labour laws. The Petitioner s younger son was said to be in Delhi and doing the course of a Chartered Accountant and was working with larsen and Toubro Ltd. and the Petitioner wanted to be with him. ( 6 ) THE oral evidence adduced by the Petitioner indicates that the Petitioner had made up his mind sometime in 1979 to shift to Delhi. Notwithstanding this, he let out the suit premises to the Respondent on 5/11/1980. The Petitioner retired from service on 31/05/1982. When the earlier lease granted by the petitioner in favour of the Respondent expired, he renewed the same on 30th october, 1983 with effect from 1/09/1983 at a higher rent. Notwithstanding this, he let out the suit premises to the Respondent on 5/11/1980. The Petitioner retired from service on 31/05/1982. When the earlier lease granted by the petitioner in favour of the Respondent expired, he renewed the same on 30th october, 1983 with effect from 1/09/1983 at a higher rent. ( 7 ) IT is quite clear if the Pentioner genuinely intended to shift to Delhi, he would not have twice given the suit premises on lease to the Respondent after the Petitioner had made up his mind to shift to Delhi. ( 8 ) AS regards the illness and treatment of the Petitioner s wife in G. B. Pant hospital, the Petitioner did not file a single document to show that his wife was receiving treatment at G. B. Pant Hospital. Along with the present petition, the petitioner filed a large number of documents from Annexure "a" to Annexure "n" which are said to be the original documents pertaining to his wife s treatment. I have gone through each one of these documents and I find that they relate to hospitals and clinics other than G. B. Pant Hospital. This was brought to the notice of learned counsel for the Petitioner who had nothing further to say on this subject. ( 9 ) AS regards the Petitioner s contention that he wanted to set up private practice as an advocate, the admitted position is that even though he had come to delhi on several occasions, he had not bothered to get himself enrolled. There is nothing on the record to show that the Petitioner took any step whatsoever towards this alleged desire. In fact, as per the oral evidence, he was not doing anything actively after his retirement. ( 10 ) IT is quite clear that the Petitioner s desire to shift to Delhi was not a genuine or a bonafide desire. ( 11 ) INSOFAR as the Petitioner s desire to be with his son is concerned, it has come on the record that the Petitioner s son is financially independent and had been living separately from the Petitioner for almost about ten years. Initially when the petitioner s son was in the tenth class in school, he was residing with his aunt in the karol Bagh property. Thereafter, did his graduation from Chandigarh in 1983. He was doing his course of Chartered Accountancy in Delhi thereafter. Initially when the petitioner s son was in the tenth class in school, he was residing with his aunt in the karol Bagh property. Thereafter, did his graduation from Chandigarh in 1983. He was doing his course of Chartered Accountancy in Delhi thereafter. Between 1983 and 1985, he was living with one of his uncles. While one cannot find fault with the petitioner wanting to live with his son in Delhi, this by itself, on the facts of the present case, would not be enough to require the Respondent to vacate the suit premises. What is more serious, however, is the failure of the Petitioner to disclose that he is the co-owner of the Karol Bagh property. He did notdisclose this in his eviction petition, which is something that should normally have been done. When the Petitioner was examined in September, 1987,hecategorically denied that he had become one of the co-owners of the Karol Bagh property. According to him, it was an ancestral property which belonged to his father who had died about ten years ago. ( 12 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the Respondent positively came to know that the Petitioner was one of the co-owners of the Karol Bagh property. Accordingly, he amended the written statement to bring this fact on record. ( 13 ) IN his replication, the Petitioner was extremely cagey and this is what he had to say: "it is denied that the petitioner has been in the ownership and possession of property No. 6/53, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. This property was owned by Smt. Radha Devi, mother of the petitioner. After her death, the same is inherited by the petitioner and his brothers. No partition has taken place. The petitioner is not in possession of any part of the said property". ( 14 ) A perusal of the above would show that the Petitioner did not indicate when his mother Smt. Radha Devi passed away. ( 15 ) FROM the papers before me/it is dear that the Petitioner s mother passed away sometime in 1984 and the property was mutated in the Petitioner s name in october, 1984, that is, even before the eviction petition was filed by the Petitioner on or about 29/11/1984. ( 16 ) THE Petitioner never disclosed that he is one of the co-owners of the Karol bagh property. ( 16 ) THE Petitioner never disclosed that he is one of the co-owners of the Karol bagh property. According to him, his father was the owner and after his death his mother became the owner. The Petitioner did not disclose that his mother had passed away before he had filed the eviction petition and, therefore, the Petitioner was one of the co-owners of the Karol Bagh property. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner was recalled for further cross-examination. ( 17 ) FOR the first time on 3/08/1994 the Petitioner admitted that he is a co-owner of the Karol Bagh property. ( 18 ) IN view of the serious concealment of necessary and relevant facts mentioned above, the learned Additional Rent Controller was right in dismissing the eviction petition. ( 19 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner contended that it was not necessary for the Petitioner to disclose the property owned by him. According to him, it was necessary to disclose only such property as was available to the Petitioner for his occupation. He submitted mat no portion of the Karol Bagh property was available to the Petitioner for his occupation. Reliance was placed by learned Counsel for the Petitioner on Ram Nanrin Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors. , (1999) 1 SCC 141 =vii (1998) slt199. ( 20 ) IN Ram Narain Arora, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the landlord was himself a tenant in a property in Subzi Mandi. This property was, first of all, not suitable for his residential accommodation and more importantly the landlord had been served with a notice of eviction by his landlord and he was under pressure of being evicted from the Subzi Mandi property. It was in these circum- stances that the landlord shifted to the suit property and filed an eviction petition against his tenant for possession of the remaining portion of the suit property. On these facts, it was held that non-disclosure of the Subzi Mandi property by the landlord was not fatal to his case. ( 21 ) CLEARLY, the law laid down in this case is inapplicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in Ram Narain Arora the landlord was himself a tenant in some other property and was not even living there and was under a threat of eviction. ( 21 ) CLEARLY, the law laid down in this case is inapplicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in Ram Narain Arora the landlord was himself a tenant in some other property and was not even living there and was under a threat of eviction. In the present case, the Petitioner was one of the co-owners of the Karol bagh property and could, ordinarily, expect to reside therein. ( 22 ) THE second decision relied upon by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is meenal Eknath Kshirsagar (Mrs.) v. Traders 6f Agencies, (1996) 5 SCC 344 =iii (1996) clt 275 (SC ). In this case, the allegation against the landlady was that she had failed to disclose that her husband was a tenant in some other flat and, therefore, they had suitable alternative accommodation available with them. It was, however, found that the landlady s husband was not the tenant of the flat. In fact, M/s A. F. Ferguson and Co. was the tenant and the landlady s husband was only a Director in that company. The flat had been taken for the residence of some other Director and the landlady s husband was allowed to reside in the flat temporarily on a leave and licence basis. It was found that the landlady s husband had vacated that flat but, it was held that even if he had not vacated that flat and continued to be in possession thereof, since he was a licensee his possession of the flat was precarious and could not have been considered as a suitable alternative accommodation. Quite dearly, even this decision is of no help to learned Counsel for the Petitioner. ( 23 ) UNDER the circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Additional Rent controller came to the right conclusions on the basis of the material on record. There is, therefore, no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed but with no order as to costs. The Trial Court record be sent back immediately. Petition dismissed.