Judgment:
G.C. Jain, J.
(1) This order shall also dispose of appeals No. 300/83, 301/83 & 303/83, as all these appeals arise out of a common order.
(2) Harnam Singh. respondent herein, is the owner of property No. Wz 803 (plot No. A/62) Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. The appellants arc in occupation of different portions of the said properly as tenants under the respondent. On February 8, 1978 the respondent-landlord brought four separate petitions for their eviction from the premises under their tenancies on the allegations that he was the owner-landlord of the premises in dispute. The existing structure was temporary, ugly and inhabitable. He bonafide required the same for purposes of building/rebuilding and such rebuilding could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. It was further averred that he bad got the plan for reconstruction sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, estimate prepared and had the necessary funds.
(3) The appellants resisted the petitions. The pleas raised were that the requirement was not bonafide and that the landlord had not disclosed the nature of new construction and thereforee they were not in a position to say whether the proposed reconstruction would alter the purpose of letting.
(4) Learned Addl. Controller, vide her order dated May 20, 1982, held that the landlord bonafide required the premises for purposes of rebuilding which could not be done without the premises being vacated ; the landlord had got the plan for reconstruction sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ; he had got the estimate prepared and had the necessary funds; the premises to Ghasi Ram had been let out for commercial purpose while to other tenants for residential purpose, and proposed reconstruction would not radically alter the purpose for which the premises were let and, in any case, the proposed reconstruction was in public interest. With these findings an order for recovery of possession of the premises in the tenancies of the tenants was passed.
(5) Feeling aggrieved, the tenants preferred four separate appeals before the Tribunal but without any success. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals. It was however recorded that the tenants had elected to be placed in occupation of the premises from which they were to be evicted. He specified the date on or before which the tenants were to deliver possession to the landlord. Still dissatisfied, the tenants have filed these second appeals.
(6) Smt. Nando is a tenant in respect of a room and Verandah measuring 150 square ft. The premises with Smt Ratni consist of one room, and open space measuring 450 sq. ft. Dhara Singh is in possession of one room, and tin shed/verandah, measuring 650.00 sq ft. The premises in the tenancy of Ghasi Ram (since deceased and represented by his L.R.s ) consisted of one room and court-yard measuring 100 sq. ft. The submission of Mr. Anand, learned counsel for the tenants, is that under the proposed reconstruction, a shop is to be constructed in the area in occupation of Dhara ; the area occupied by Smt. Nando is to be left open and the area occupied by Smt. Ratni and L.Rs. of Ghasi will come under residential portion. The proposed reconstruction will thus radically alter the purpose for which the premises were let and, in any case, the tenants would be deprived of their rights under Section 20 of the Act to be placed back in occupation of the premises from which they were to be evicted after reconstruction. In these circumstances, no order for eviction under clause (g) of the proviso to Sub-section , of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (for short 'the Act')., could be made.
(7) SUB-SECTION (8) of Section 14 of the Act prohibits making of an order under clause (g) unless, inter alia, the Controller is satisfied that the proposed reconstruction will not radically alter the purpose for which the premises were let or such radical alteration was in public interest. In the present case, the finding rendered by the courts below is that the letting purpose, except in the case of Ghasi Ram, was residential. The premises in the tenancy of Ghasi Ram were let to him for commercial purpose. This finding is based on the admissions contained in the written statement, filed by the tenants, and is thereforee unassailable. Both the Courts below have held that the proposed reconstruction was for residential-cum-commercial purposes. It is otherwise clear from a perusal of the sanctioned plan which showed that the landlord wanted to construct shops on the front portion and the back portion is residential. The proposed reconstruction, thereforee, would not radically alter the purpose for which the premises had been let to the appellants. It is correct that no kitchen has been provided in the building to be reconstructed but the fact remains that even now the kitchen it not in the tenancy of any of these tenants. It may be added that there is no lavatory even in the existing building ; however, in the proposed building two lavatories have been provided.
(8) Section 20 of the Act confers a right on the tenants, to be evicted under clause (g), to be placed back in occupation of the premises from which they are to be evicted, if they so elect. The contention of Mr. Anand is that the appellants are entitled to be placed back in occupation of exactly the same place from where they are to be evicted. This would not be possible after the proposed reconstruction and thereforee no order under clause (g) could be made.
(9) Provisions contained in Section 20 have to be given a reasonable construction so as to achieve the purpose for which these have been enacted. Purpose is to provide similar accommodation to the tenant in that very building after its reconstruction. In the case of re-building some alterations are must-may be because of bye-laws and regulations made by the Municipal authorities or for various other reasons including better utilisation of the land under the building. thereforee the tenant cannot always be put in possession of exactly the same place. The said space may be left open in the reconstructed building thereforee all that Section 20 requires is that after the proposed reconstruction the tenant should be able to get the similar premises with almost same floor area, amenities having regard to the. letting purpose.
(10) The landlord according to the sanctioned plan wants to construct four shops with stores in front, each measuring about 25' 0' X 8'.6', four stores behind these shops measuring 12'.3' X 10'.6' each and then one more room measuring 6'.8' x 7' besides two lavatories and open court yard in the back Each of the tenants arc in possession of one room measuring 10' X 10'. Thus each of them was in possession of about 100 sq ft. covered area besides open space or verandah mentioned above. The total area in their possession-constructed area and open space- is about 1750 sq. ft (400 sq. ft. covered area and 1350 square ft. open space). They can be duly accommodated after the reconstruction. The landlord in his statement has admitted that he shall give the same floor area which is in possession of the tenants in the reconstructed building. In these circumstances, the contention, that the tenants would be deprived of their right under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be accepted.
(11) It was then argued that judicial notice could be taken of the fact that the prices have escalated many-times and consequently the landlord had now not the necessary funds for the reconstruction. The landlord has filed an affidavit stating that he had rupees two lakhs in fixed deposit with Rajouri Garden Branch of the Punjab and Sindh Bank and another Rs. 50.000.00 lying in his saving account in the same Bank. He had National Saving Certificates of Rs 1 lakh. In the presence of this affidavit, this contention of learned counsel for the tenant has no merit
(12) It was also urged that the landlord had not collected any building material which showed that the requirement was not bonafide. This contention cannot be accepted. It may be noted that the application was filed in 1978. Had he stored building material, by now the same would have become a total loss.
(13) For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the appeals and dismiss the same. It is, however, recorded that the appellants have elected to be placed in occupation of the premises from which they are to be evicted. They are directed to vacate the premises on or before April 30, 1986. The landlord would complete the work of reconstruction within nine months thereafter. After completion, the tenants would be entitled to be put in occupation of the premises from which they are to be evicted or similar premises having regard to their floor area and letting purpose. Parties are left to bear their own costs.