Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2311 (DEL)

MADAN MOHAN KHULLAR v. PREM CHAND

2006-12-12

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2006
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner/tenant on grounds of bona fide requirement under section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent control Act (herein after referred to as the said Act ). The tenanted premise consists of entire ground floor of property bearing no D-16, Hauz Khas, New delhi which was let out for residential purposes to the petitioner at Rs 600/-per month. The ground floor comprises of two rooms, verandah, kitchen and toilet situated in the front and two rooms with a verandah, toilet and store on the rear side. The family of the respondent consists of himself and his wife and two sons. The elder son is married who has in turn two daughters. The second son of the respondent is aged about 27 years and has physical disability. There are two married daughters of the respondent living in Delhi. The other family of the respondent is stated to be two married daughters, one of whom lives in Delhi and the other in Sambalka and continue to visit the respondent. The respondent is aged about 64 years. The respondent also claimed a room for his Puja. The respondent has in occupation of the first floor of the same property consisting of four rooms, one kitchen, one store and two toilets which was stated to be insufficient. ( 2 ) THE petition was contested by the petitioner and one of the defences inter alia raised is that in the month of June,1980, the elder son of the respondent completed his engineering from IIT and was expected to do consultancy business. The premises were stated to have been let out in 1964 in respect of the front side and thereafter in 1976 the back side was also let out. The respondent claimed that he approached the petitioner to permit commercial user of the ground floor of the tenanted premises and thus the purpose of letting was changed from residential to residential cum commercial whereby the rent was increased from Rs 540/- to Rs 600/- per month. The son however did not carry on consultancy business and the second son of the petitioner joined legal profession and required accommodation for his profession/business. The second son was also stated to be doing the business of sale and purchase of cars apart from legal profession from the tenanted premises. The son however did not carry on consultancy business and the second son of the petitioner joined legal profession and required accommodation for his profession/business. The second son was also stated to be doing the business of sale and purchase of cars apart from legal profession from the tenanted premises. Since purpose of letting was residential cum commercial, the eviction from the tenanted premises could not be sought on grounds of bona fide requirement. The petitioner was also stated to be having accommodation and property at 17, Central Lane, Bengali Market, delhi where 10 rooms were available to the petitioner. Thus the petitioner had sufficient residential accommodation. ( 3 ) THE evidence was recorded and the eviction petition has been allowed by the impugned order dated 17. 11. 2004 ( 4 ) THERE is really no dispute in respect of respondent being owner/landlord of the property in question and the rent is also paid by the petitioner to the respondent. ( 5 ) THE real question is arising from the plea of the parties of letting being changed from residential to residential cum commercial and that is the aspect sought to be urged even before this Court. The petitioner has relied on rent receipts Exaw1/r2 and R3. These are the rent receipts, which bear the signatures of the respondent, were alleged to have been filled by the petitioner. The counter foils of these rent receipts were also produced, both of which were blank. No evidence was produced to show any commercial activity carried on by the sons of the petitioner. The business of selling cars was not established. In fact son of the petitioner is stated to be an advocate who has a chamber in patiala House Courts even otherwise in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court noticed by the Trial Court in para 7 of the impugned order, mere fact of an advocate using part of residential premises for his personal office cannot convert user into commercial. The premises is by nature residential and the property is assessed to property tax for residential use. It has not been established that there is any change of user from the original residential specified. In my considered view there is no force in this contention of the counsel for the petitioner. The premises is by nature residential and the property is assessed to property tax for residential use. It has not been established that there is any change of user from the original residential specified. In my considered view there is no force in this contention of the counsel for the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE aspect of bona fide requirement can hardly be doubted in view of the extent of accommodation available with the respondent of four rooms. The respondent would need a room for himself and his wife, one room for his married son and one room for his two grand children. A separate room would be required for second son aged about 27 years who has physical disability. Apart from this family would require drawing and dining room apart from kitchen and store room and puja room. As far as the alternative residential accommodation is concerned at 17, Central Lane, Bengali Market, the deposition of the respondent shows that his father and father's two elder brothers were owners of the said house where the respondent resided till 1990 when he shifted to first floor of the suit premises. There is large number of collaterals living at the property at 17, Central Lane, Bengali Market as set out in para 10 of the impugned order. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that initial period of six months granted for vacating the tenanted premises has expired and the petitioner wants to take recourse to further legal remedy as he does not want to vacate the tenanted premises on grant of time. ( 8 ) IN view of the request made, one month's time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the tenanted premises. Dismissed.