Judgment:
N.N. Goswanay, J.
(1) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the owner-landlord is directed against the order dated 15/2/1983 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi whereby his petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, was dismissed.
(2) The petitioner has failed a petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. In paragraph 18 (a) of the petition, it was stated that the premises in dispute had been let to the respondent for residential purpose and are required by the petitioner for bona fide personal requirement. It is further alleged that the petitioners is serving with the Indian Army and was posted outside, Delhi. He had besides himself, his wife and a grown up son. At the time of filing of the petition, the petitioner was posted in Eastern Sector in Assam which is not a family station and the petitioner could not keep his family with him. However, by a special permission, he was allowed to keep his family at 25/1, Shivaji Nagar, Mizamari, Assam. The petitioner served a notice upon the Respondent to vacate the premises on the ground that the same was needed by him for his personal bona fide requirement for himself and for members of his family. He wanted to keep his family at Delhi for which he required the premises in dispute. It is further alleged that the son of the petitioners is studying in Xth Class and has to appear in his final examination in March, 1980 and there being no arrangement for his education at the place where he was studying at the point of time. It has also been stated that the petitioner has no other residential accommodation much less reasonable or suitable in Delhi or New Delhi.
(3) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent various preliminary objections were raised. It was stated that there was no privity oF contract between the petitioner and the respondent and the petitioner had no locus standi to file the petition. Further stated that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and the respondent was never the- tenant of the petitioner. It is also stated that the premises in question were originally let by Sunil Kumar Tewari and later on the rent was paid to Shri K. Teri at the instance of the said S.K. Tewari (at both places in these objections the name of S.K. Tewari has been put in different handwriting by pen though the rest of the paragraph is typed). It is also stated that the respondent-tenant does not know the petitioner and the premises were let to the respondent not by the petitioner nor anybody let out the property on behalF of the petitioner and as such the respondent is not tenant of the petitioner. On merits, it is stated that the premises were let for residential-cum-commercial purposes. The respondent has been running a transport agency in the name of Rajinder Goods Transport Co. as well as travel agency for the booking of buses and other transport. According to the respondent he had been running transport agency in these premises from the very inception of the tenancy. Similarly the bonafide requirement of the petitioner for himself and also for his family members had been disputed.
(4) As regards the controversy regarding there being a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties the rent Controller relied upon a certificate which was admittedly issued by the respondent to the petitioner. Thecertificateis,asunder:-
'I certify that I am paying Rs. 280.00 per month as rent of flat No. 52 C/K.D, block to Captain Sudarshan Kumar, the owner of the flat since May, 1974.'
(5) In fact, this certificate clinches the second issue of the petitioner Toeing the owner of the flat also. However, the petitioner has examined an official of the Dda and has himself also deposed that he had been allotted this flat in 1973 and he also got the possession of the flat though the formal sale deed was executed in 1980. However, during this time, the petitioner had the letter from the Dda of allotment. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the petitioner was the owner of the premises on the date he let out the premises as also on the date he filed the petition for eviction. Thus the findings of the Rent Controller to the effect that the petitioner became the owner of the flat only in 1980 cannot possibly be sustained.
(6) Coming to the question of the purpose of letting the case of the petitioner is that the premises were let for residential purpose only. As again that, the respondent has pleaded that the premises were let for c cum-commercial purpose. According to the respondent he has been running a transport agency from the premises. It is an admitted fact by the respondent as also by his witnesses that his main place of business is located at 717, Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi. In fact, the letter of those premises has been produced on record. The business activity which was allegedly carried on by the respondent in these premises, certain people contacted him for booking buses though no deal was finalised in the premises. Merely because certain people contacted for booking of buses, the premises cannot be termed as business premises. Admittedly, the premises are located on a second floor and as a Dda flat allotted and transferred to the petitioner, only for the purpose of residence. It is in a residential colony and it is not possible for anybody to run a transport business from those premises. The learned Rent Controller has relied on four rent receipts allegedly issued from January 1977 to June, 1977 by one S.K. Tewari. All those receipts are in the following language:- 2 Received Rs. 350.00 through Rajinder Singh son of S. Dalip Singh as rent for flat No. 52-C/KD Block, Ashok Vihar, Delhi from 5/1/1977 to 5/2/1977 rented for residential-cum-commercial purposes.
(7) This S.K. Tewari was summoned by the respondent and all attempts were made to produce him to Court but he could not be served. It is stated that the bar by Shri Bindra, the learned counsel, for the petitioner who is also accompanied by the petitioner that this S.K. Tewari was the son of the brother-in-law of the petitioner and his whereabouts are not known. Question of his issuing receipts creates a lot of doubt in the circumstances of this case. the respondent appeared as Rw I as his own witness. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he never got any rent receipt from S.K. Tewari in May, 1974 or thereafter. He again said that several receipts were issued, some were issued by S.K. Tewari. Surprisingly no receipt except the receipts issued by this Tewari have been produced on the record though admittedly several receipts were issued to the respondent. In cross-examination, he stated that he used to pay rent to Srioivas Teri, the father of the petitioner and he did not know the relationship between S.K. Tewari and Srinivas Ten. It is surprising that without knowing the relationship of S.K. Tewari and Srinivas Teri and without noticing the authority in his favor the respondent was paying rent to S.K. Tewari and was obtaining receipts from him. In the circumstances of this case, it is absolutely clear that the receipts have been manipulated or have been procured For some consideration from S.K. Tewari who is alleged to be a youngman of bad character. This allegation is only at the bar and is not borne out from evidence. It can safely be said that the whereabouts of S.K. Tewari are unknown for the simple reason that in spite of several attempts having been made by the respondent to serve him with the summons, the service could not be affected. In the absence of there being receipts or rent agreement executed by the petitioner and taking into consideration the nature of the property and the nature of the business being carried on by the respondent there is no option but to hold that the premises were let for residential purpose and not commercial purpose and no commercial activity is carried on at the premises.
(8) The only other question which remains is whether the requirement of the petitioner is bonafide. By now the petitioner has retired as Major from the Army and there is nothing to show that he has any alternate accommodation available to him in Delhi or anywhere else and the observations made by the learned Rent Controller that his father owns or is keeping a house in Shahdara which consists of three rooms are absolutely irrelevant inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be compelled to go and stay with his father in a meagure accommodation, particularly, when he has been holding a responsible office and is of a higher status. Even at the time of filing of the petition, it stands proved from the certificate issued by the Principal of the School in which the petitioners was studying to the effect that there was no arrangement for further studies in the school beyond the Xth class. The young boy had naturally to continue with his studies and the petitioner could very well find his own house and let his child and wife remain in the house so that the son could continue with the study. This is particularly true in the light of the statement of the petitioner to the effect that he was not expected to keep his family at the place of posting. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the requirement of the petitioner ware not bonafide. The petitioner has retired during the pendency of this petition and by now it is well settled that such subsequent events have to be taken into consideration while deciding the petition. The petitioner cannot be expected to be on the road and let the tenant remain in his house.
(9) For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is allowed. The respondent is granted six month's time from today to hand over vacant possession of the house. The petitioner will be entitled to his' costs throughout.