Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2068 (DEL)

JAGDISH KR. v. NAUT RAM

2006-11-13

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2006
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) THE respondents filed an eviction petition against the petitioners under section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, ?the said Act?) in respect of premises No. 9454, Pull Mithai Walan, Library Road, Azad Market, Delhi. The house is stated to be comprising of one room, Dalan or courtyard, kitchen, latrine and staircase as per the site-plan annexed to the petition and was stated to be let out to the petitioners at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- for residential purposes. The petitioners inherited the tenancy rights from the original tenant, Late Shri mukandi Lal in 1987. The respondents claimed that the respondents were in requirement of the tenanted premises bona fide for the residence of their family members as they have no other suitable residential accommodation. ( 2 ) THE respondents stated that respondents No. 3 and 4 were living in a separate house on rent along with their family members, while respondent No. 1, aged about 45 years at that time, was residing in House No. 9451, Tokriwalan, Azad market, Delhi along with his family comprising of his wife and daughter. The daughter was married a year prior to the filing of the petition. Respondent No. 2 was at that stage aged about 30 years and living in the same house along with his wife and four children being daughters aged about 12 and 5 years and sons aged about 10 and 8 years. The accommodation available with respondents No. 1 and 2 was stated to be just three rooms, one kitchen, latrine, bathroom and a small Dalan. ( 3 ) ON a concession by the respondents without prejudice to their rights and contentions, leave was granted to the petitioners to contest the petition. The petitioners disputed the ownership of the respondents and stated that the purpose of letting was residential-cum-commercial. The latter plea was based on the averment that the petitioners were working as coolie in the night-time and in the day-time used to engage in the business of manufacture of Dona Pattals. The respondents were also alleged to have more than sufficient accommodation in house No. 9451, which was owned and possessed by two of the respondents. The other two respondents were stated to be living in separate accommodation. The respondents were also alleged to have more than sufficient accommodation in house No. 9451, which was owned and possessed by two of the respondents. The other two respondents were stated to be living in separate accommodation. It was also alleged that the respondents own two separate houses bearing Nos. 9452 and 9453 at Tokriwalan, Azad Market, Delhi and, thus, did not require the separate dwelling house, which was tenanted. One of the respondents, i. e. , respondent No. 3 was alleged to own and possess property No. B?282, Nathupura, delhi measuring 32 sq. yds. which had since been sold. The parties led evidence and the Additional Rent Controller (for short, ? arc?) in terms of the impugned order dated 18. 07. 2002 held that the respondents were entitled to succeed in the eviction proceedings. ( 4 ) THE ARC found that insofar as the issue of ownership is concerned, the property in question was admittedly purchased by Shri Ram Lal, the father of the respondents and after his demise, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was paying rent to the respondents. Thus, the ownership and landlord-tenant relationship was found to be established and learned counsel for the petitioners has not been seriously able to challenge the said finding. ( 5 ) AS far as the purpose of letting is concerned, it was found that late Shri mukandi Lal, the tenant had been residing in the tenanted premises along with his family members. The accommodation comprised of one room, Dalan, open courtyard, kitchen and latrine. The plea that in such premises the business of manufacturing of Dona Pattals was also carried out was found to be unsubstantiated. In fact, no evidence had been brought on record that such business was being carried on from the said premises. The petitioners were not even able to point out as to what portion of the premises was being used for the said purposes. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid, the findings of the ARC cannot be faulted. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any material on record to come to a different conclusion. ( 7 ) THE aspect of bona fide requirement has again been analysed by the ARC in view of the testimonies led. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid, the findings of the ARC cannot be faulted. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any material on record to come to a different conclusion. ( 7 ) THE aspect of bona fide requirement has again been analysed by the ARC in view of the testimonies led. A finding has been arrived at in para 15 that the extent of the family of each of the respondents was not challenged nor the aspect as to where the respondents were residing. The site-plan was not disputed. The petitioners did not file any other site-plan to substantiate the plea raised in the written statement. It was found that there were rooms in occupation of the respondents less than 100 sq. ft. Respondent No. 2 has four grown up children, who would require more accommodation for their existence. Similarly, even though the daughter of respondent No. 1 was married, the arrangement for visits of the married daughter could not be denied. The accommodation with the respondents at No. 9542 and 9453 are, in fact, tenanted. A case of bona fide requirement was, thus, made out. ( 8 ) IN this behalf, even the aspect of alternative accommodation has been looked into and it has been found that premises No. 9452 and 9453 are two small houses comprising of three rooms each less than 100 sq. ft. and a Dalan in front of each of the rooms. The allegation of sale of properties was also unsubstantiated. Nothing was brought on record to show the alternative accommodation available. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners was not really able to point out as to how the findings arrived at by the ARC can be assailed in the absence of any evidence produced to the contrary. ( 10 ) IN my considered view, there is no patent or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. In fact, the hearing of the matter was concluded on 12. 10. 2006 and when the order was to be dictated dismissing the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners sought deferment of the order on the ground that he would like to obtain instructions from the petitioners whether they would like to pray for some time to vacate the tenanted premises subject to filing of the usual undertaking. A further adjournment was again taken on 30. 10. A further adjournment was again taken on 30. 10. 2006, but today, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are not desirous of giving such an undertaking as they would like to agitate the matter further. Dismissed.