Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 27 (DEL)

WG. CDR. TAPESHWAR PURI v. LEE CLUB FRANCAIS

2007-01-04

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2007
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) LATE Wing Commander Tapeshwar Puri filed an eviction petition against the respondent on grounds of bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of the delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in respect of two bed rooms, drawing-cum-dining, two bathrooms, kitchen, one small study room, bath-cum-WC, lawn on front and small verandah and bathroom-cum-latrine on the ground floor of premises bearing No. D-49, Defence Colony, New delhi, which had been let out in pursuance to Lease Deed dated 9. 8. 1974 for residential purposes. It was stated in the eviction proceedings that the tenanted premises were required for the residence of late Wing Commander tapeshwar Puri and his family members consisting of his wife, two sons and a daughter. ( 2 ) LATE Wing Commander Tapeshwar Puri, however, passed away on 10. 11. 1996 during the pendency of the petition and his wife also passed away on 24. 4. 2000. Thereafter his two sons and daughter are stated to have become owners of the property in dispute in equal shares. ( 3 ) THE first floor of the property was stated to be occupied by M/s. Mehta pharmaceuticals and Alchem International as tenant and the user was residential purpose. This concern was of the brother-in-law of late Wing Commandar tapeshwar Puri and thus one of his sons Mr. Adishwar Puri started staying on the first floor in one room. However, before the final adjudication of the eviction petition the first floor is stated to have been vacated by the tenant and is occupied by Mr. Adishwar Puri where he is stated to be living along with his wife and son. ( 4 ) ANOTHER eviction proceedings were filed by the owner under Section 14 (1) (h) of the said Act in respect of the garage and one servant quarter above the garage against Mr. Pravin Mehra. In pursuance to those proceedings the possession of that portion has also been taken over by the owners. ( 5 ) THE petitioners are stated to have raised a construction of one room on the second floor measuring 14' X 13' with open latrine, which accommodation is also available for the benefit of the petitioners. ( 6 ) THE eviction proceedings were contested by the respondent. ( 5 ) THE petitioners are stated to have raised a construction of one room on the second floor measuring 14' X 13' with open latrine, which accommodation is also available for the benefit of the petitioners. ( 6 ) THE eviction proceedings were contested by the respondent. The stand of the respondent is that there is dispute about the relationship of landlord and tenant and the extent of accommodation with the tenant but that the user is residential-cum-commercial as the premises were being used for the activities of the respondent club. The bonafide requirement of the original petitioner was denied. The respondent society is stated to have been formed with the aim and objective of strengthening the existing friendly relations between India and france and to promote their development and to bring together like-minded people interested in the French language and civilization. It is, however, really not in dispute at present that the accommodation has been used for residence of the president of the respondent. ( 7 ) THE respondent also pleaded that the original petitioner was well settled at chandigarh and had no intention to shift to Delhi. The eldest son of the original petitioner was stated to be independent and not dependent on the original petitioner for residence. ( 8 ) THE Additional Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition in terms of the order dated 26. 4. 2003. The original petitioner established the ownership as also the fact that the purpose of letting was only residential. This fact was further established by Clause 15 of the Lease Deed (exhibit RW-3/p-1) specifying that the premises was let out only for residential purposes. ( 9 ) THE principal dispute related to the bonafide requirement of the petitioners and the Additional Rent Controller took into consideration the subsequent events during the pendency of the petition. The eldest son of the original petitioner mr. Aditya Puri was posted in Mumbai and had a son and daughter aged 20 years and 16 years respectively. The daughter of the original petitioner Ms. Aarti was married and had one daughter aged 15 years and a son aged 12 years. The younger son Mr. Adishwar Puri is married and is stated to have one small child. Thus, the requirement pleaded was for both the sons of the original petitioner as well as their family members apart from their visiting sister Ms. Aarti. Aarti was married and had one daughter aged 15 years and a son aged 12 years. The younger son Mr. Adishwar Puri is married and is stated to have one small child. Thus, the requirement pleaded was for both the sons of the original petitioner as well as their family members apart from their visiting sister Ms. Aarti. ( 10 ) THE Additional Rent Controller found that no case had really been built that mr. Aditya Puri wanted to come to Delhi as he was settled in Mumbai. Prior to his posting in Mumbai, he was posted in Riyadh. The Additional Rent Controller, thus, held that the accommodation available with Mr. Adishwar Puri was sufficient and there was also accommodation available for the occasional visits of the sister/co-owner being petitioner No. 3 herein. ( 11 ) THE plea of absence of any alternative residential accommodation was accepted. ( 12 ) THE aforesaid order of the Additional Rent Controller was challenged in the present proceedings by the petitioners/owners. An application being CM no. 5809/2006 was also filed to bring on record the subsequent events in the present proceedings. It is stated that Ms. Aarti Sood, who is a co-owner and was earlier staying with her husband at Trivandrum has now permanently shifted to Delhi because of her strained relations with her husband and was occupying a part of the second floor of the suit property. The PAN number as issued to Ms. Sood by the Income Tax Department has been filed. The petitioners have also filed part of the proceedings before the matrimonial court initiated by the husband of petitioner No. 3 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. ( 13 ) THE other fact sought to be brought on record is that Mr. Adishwar Puri has been suffering from heart ailments and with the passage of time his condition has deteriorated. Reports from the Mool Chand Hospital have been annexed to the application showing advice from the Cardiologist not to climb stairs. Mr. Adishwar Puri is also stated to have a back problem where some of his spinal bones have degenerated for which he is going to the Indian Spinal Injuries centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and has once again been advised not to climb stairs. Thus, his requirement for ground floor premises has been pleaded. Mr. Adishwar Puri is also stated to have a back problem where some of his spinal bones have degenerated for which he is going to the Indian Spinal Injuries centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and has once again been advised not to climb stairs. Thus, his requirement for ground floor premises has been pleaded. ( 14 ) THE petitioners also claim that the respondent society is now defunct and in fact the premises are lying locked and in this behalf have relied upon the proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate in pursuance to an FIR registered. The investigation carried out in pursuance to the directions of the court by the Police Station, Defence Colony resulted in a report that no such respondent society has been found at the registered office at 24-A, Nizamuddin west, First Floor, New Delhi and the members of the society being Ms. Anita mehta and Mr. Praveen Mehta are not residing at the tenanted premises. The extent of accommodation is supported by the survey of the House Tax Department dated 10. 1. 2006. ( 15 ) IN reply to the aforesaid application the respondent has sought to throw doubts on the bonafide requirement of the petitioners inter alia alleging that after the impugned order was passed a fresh petition was filed by the petitioners on grounds of bonafide requirement where the address of the respondent was falsely given as 24-A, Nizamuddin West, First Floor, New Delhi. It is alleged that the facts now sought to be brought on record form a part of the fresh eviction proceedings. The fresh eviction proceedings is stated to have been abandoned by the petitioners and were dismissed for non-prosecution on 7. 9. 2006. It is also stated that Mr. Adishwar Puri has been using the first floor and second floor for running his business and after the passing of the impugned order, the second floor has been let out to a third party. Apart from this, there are general denials of the averments made in the application. ( 16 ) THE only argument by both the learned counsels for the parties was on the question of the bonafide requirement of the petitioners. Apart from this, there are general denials of the averments made in the application. ( 16 ) THE only argument by both the learned counsels for the parties was on the question of the bonafide requirement of the petitioners. The petitioners claim that the accommodation in their possession is one room on the second floor, one room at servant quarter above the garage and a set of two rooms, one bath room, kitchen and a study on the first floor. It was, thus, urged that the petitioners are not in possession of five bed rooms as observed by the additional Rent Controller. The family of Mr. Adishwar Puri who is stated to be a journalist is stated to require separate bed rooms and a work space and thus in any case the first floor accommodation along with servant quarter would be required for him. This is, however, without prejudice to the fact that as per cm No. 5809/2006 due to his medical condition the ground floor is required for him. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners urged that the documents filed along with the aforesaid application showed the strained relations between Ms. Aarti Sood and her husband resulting even in matrimonial proceedings. The documents show that Ms. Aarti is staying in a part of the second floor of the suit property and she requires at least two bed rooms as the children aged 18 years and 16 years and are of different sex. As far as Mr. Aditya Puri is concerned, he is a managing Director of HDFC Bank and thus the status of the family is not in dispute. There is no doubt about the joint ownership of the petitioners. Mr. Aditya Puri and Ms. Aarti Sood cannot be expected to live in the barsati floor and the servant quarter above the garage. Mr. Aditya Puri requires an accommodation commensurate to his status and was staying in a rented accommodation at Shanti Niketan when he was posted at Delhi. The son of Mr. Aditya Puri was doing his MBA during the pendency of the petition and had to remain in hostel because of absence of adequate accommodation. Mr. Aditya Puri requires an accommodation commensurate to his status and was staying in a rented accommodation at Shanti Niketan when he was posted at Delhi. The son of Mr. Aditya Puri was doing his MBA during the pendency of the petition and had to remain in hostel because of absence of adequate accommodation. It was specifically pointed out that there was no two rooms on the second floor as found by the Additional Rent Controller since the witness of the respondent herself admitted in her cross-examination that there was one room and latrine on the second floor, which was constructed during the pendency of the eviction proceedings. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, however, contended to the contrary by alleging that Mr. Aditya Puri was gainfully employed in Mumbai for more than twenty years and had no intention to settle in Delhi. Ms. Aarti was married and settled in Trivandrum for the last twenty years. ( 19 ) LEARNED counsel also pointed out that Mr. Adishwar Puri has no child but what has been stated in the pleadings and the testimony is that he was planning to adopt a child but till date nothing has been brought on record to show such adoption. There was no case ever built for the residence of Mr. Aditya Puri or any member of his family. A plea was also sought to be advanced that during the lifetime of the wife of the original petitioner no one had come to support her and the present petitioners were never looking after her. This issue can be dealt with at this stage itself because, in my considered view, the same has no relevance for the adjudication of the present dispute and is merely a bald allegation. ( 20 ) I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties. The matter pertains only to the issue of bonafide requirement of the petitioners and has to be dealt with taking into consideration the subsequent facts as considerable time has passed since the original eviction petition was filed by late Wing Commander Tapeshwar Puri. Some of the developments took place during the pendency of the eviction proceedings while others are stated to have arisen during the pendency of the present petition. Thus, the application, CM No. 5809/2006, and the response thereto have to be considered. Some of the developments took place during the pendency of the eviction proceedings while others are stated to have arisen during the pendency of the present petition. Thus, the application, CM No. 5809/2006, and the response thereto have to be considered. ( 21 ) INSOFAR as the extent of accommodation is concerned, the tenanted accommodation is undisputed and it is really a two bed room set. The position is the same in respect of the first floor apart from one servant quarter over the garage. The barsati room is also available and the current report of the mcd on inspection dated 10. 1. 2006 further supports this aspect. The question to be considered is whether all this accommodation is required by the petitioners when only the ground floor is in possession of the respondent and the remaining portion is in the possession of the petitioners. ( 22 ) THE material on record shows that petitioner No. 1 continues to be a resident of Mumbai. There is no material to show his permanent shifting to Delhi. At best he would require some accommodation for his visits to Delhi. It cannot be lost sight of that all the petitioners are co-owners to the extent of 1/3rd share each after the demise of their parents and it is not as if petitioner No. 1 is seeking some space in the accommodation of petitioner No. 2 for his visits but that as co-owner is entitled to maintain some space for his visits to Delhi. ( 23 ) THE family of petitioner No. 2 consists of himself and his wife. There is substance in the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that it has not been established on record that there is any child adopted by petitioner No. 2. There is, of course, the medical problem of petitioner No. 2 for which the medical reports have been filed from the Mool Chand Hospital as also from the indian Spinal Injuries Centre. These medical reports do show an aggravation of both the spinal and the heart ailments. It cannot be said that these reports obtained from the reputed hospitals are fabricated or cannot be relied upon. All the petitioners are people of social and financial standing and their requirements have to be considered in that perspective. These medical reports do show an aggravation of both the spinal and the heart ailments. It cannot be said that these reports obtained from the reputed hospitals are fabricated or cannot be relied upon. All the petitioners are people of social and financial standing and their requirements have to be considered in that perspective. Petitioner No. 2 is stated to be a journalist and a qualified person who needs some working space for his reading and writing apart from the requirement of any guests which he may have. The two bed rooms set would certainly suffice for his requirement and petitioner No. 2 would not need any further accommodation. The only aspect is that in view of his medical condition a case has been made out for possible exchange between the accommodation of the ground floor and the first floor as petitioner No. 2 does need a ground floor accommodation on account of medical reasons. The aforesaid could have been a solution to the dispute but there is the aspect of the requirement of petitioner No. 3, which has arisen on account of strained relations with her husband. This strained relationship is evident from the copies of the matrimonial proceedings filed on record whereby her husband has instituted a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The PAN card of petitioner No. 3 shows that she is residing in the property in question. She has two teenaged children, who are presently in Trivandrum but are scheduled to shift to Delhi. Even assuming that the requirement of children is not established at present, petitioner No. 3 would require a proper room along with sitting area, bath and toilet apart from a room for the visits of her children. A two room set would be, thus, required for her. ( 24 ) IF the requirement of petitioner No. 2 is considered along with the requirement of petitioner No. 3 and the visits of petitioner No. 1, it can hardly be said that the requirement of the complete house by the three co-owners being the petitioners is not bonafide or fanciful. ( 25 ) IT is trite to say that an owner is the best judge of his requirement though such requirement should not be fanciful and illusionary created only with the object of seeking eviction of a tenant. ( 25 ) IT is trite to say that an owner is the best judge of his requirement though such requirement should not be fanciful and illusionary created only with the object of seeking eviction of a tenant. If these parameters are applied, I have no doubt that the petitioners have made out a case for eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises. ( 26 ) I do not deem it appropriate to go into the question as to whether the respondent is or is not actually enjoying the tenanted premises since that is a separate ground available for eviction and no sufficient material has been placed on record in this behalf. ( 27 ) AN order of eviction is passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent/tenant in respect of the tenanted premises as described in the eviction petition. The respondent is granted six months time to vacate the tenanted premises. The petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.