Arun Kumar, J.
(1) The petitioner claiming to be the owner/landlord of premises No. M-134, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, filed an eviction petition against the respondents under clause (e) to Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petition was filed on 14/05/1982. After a protracted trial it was dismissed by the Addl.Rent Controller vide judgment dated 22.1.1990. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment of the Additional Rent Controller in the present proceedings.
(2) Briefly stated the facts are that the premises in suit was let out to the respondents by the mother of the petitioner in February 1969 in pursuance of an agreement of lease for Ii months entered into between the parties on 23/05/1971.Vide gift deed dated 29/03/1971 the property in suit was gifted by the mother of the petitioner. The gift deed is a duly registered document. The property has been mutated in the name of the petitioner in the records of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The respondents started paying rent to the petitioner from 1971 in view of the said gift deed in favor of the petitioner. the petitioner claims to be the owner of the premises on the basis of the said gift deed.It is further stated by the petitioner that the premises .is located in a residential area and was let out for residential purpose to the respondents since the very inception of the tenancy. Respondent No. 1 Along with family members had been residing in the premises all along. The case of the petitioner is that the premises is required by the petitioner/landlady bona fide for occupation as a residence for herself, her husband and two daughters. The husband and the minor daughters are dependent on the petitioner for purposes of residence. The petitioner has no other residential accommodation available to her in Delhi. The petitioner is a woman of status being assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax. The petitioner is residing with her husband and her two daughters in a small room as a temporary guest of her younger sister in her house at M-144, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi. The said sister with her family is residing with her in-laws in the said joint family house. The petitioner further claimed that she has shifted to Delhi as her husband has started business at New Delhi and the petitioner's daughters have started their education at Delhi. The petitioner also stated in the eviction petition that she was living in a very awkward position and the respondents were requested to vacate the premises and respondent No. 1 promised to do so at the earliest. But the promises nevermaterialised.
(3) In the written statement the respondents denied all the averments of the petitioner including the averment that the petitioner was the owner/landlady of the suit premises and that the premises were let for residential purposes.According to the tenant the premises were let for residential-cum-commercialpurposes. The bona fide need of the petitioner for the suit premises was alsodenied. It was stated that the petitioner was living alone with her husband permanently at Lucknow. The petitioner's husband was stated to be carrying on business at Lucknow under the name and style of Hind Shoe Company. He was filing income-tax returns of his business at Lucknow. The respondent denied that the petitioner's husband was having any business whatsoever at Delhi. The averment that the petitioner was residing at M-144, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi as a guest of her younger sister was also denied. It was stated that the petitioner and her husband were having their names in the voters' list and telephone directory at Lucknow which showed that they were residents of Lucknow. It was also stated that the mother of the petitioner has a very big house at C-II, N.D.S.E.Part Ii, New Delhi where the petitioner stays whenever she comes to Delhi and,therefore, residence with the sister at M-144, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi was only a pretence to show scarcity of accommodation. The mother of the petitioner is all alone residing in the house at N.D.S.E., Part-11, New Delhi.
(4) The normal requirements to be established by a petitioner in an eviction petition underclause(e) of the proviso to Sub-section (l) of Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act are:-
(I)petitioner is the owner of the premises in question;(ii) the premises was let to the tenant for residential purpose;(iii) premises is required bona fide by the petitioner for occupation as''a residence for herself or for members of her family dependent uponher; and(iv) she has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation available to her.
(5) The Addl.Rent Controller found in favor of the petitioner on the first two requirements stated above. However, the petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish her bonafide requirement for the suitpremises. In the present proceedings the learned Counsel for the respondents conceded at the Bar that he was not challenging the findings of the Additional Rent Controller on the question of ownership and purpose of letting of the suitpremises. thereforee, the matter before me is confined to the question of bona fide requirement of the premises in suit of the petitioner. The fourth point regarding availability of other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the petitioner is also not in issue in view of the admission of the tenant that the petitioner does not own any other property in Delhi.
(6) On the question of bona fide need of the petitioner having considered the facts on record and rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that approach of the learned Additional Rent Controller in dealing with the matter was not correct. The learned Additional Rent Controller adopted a narrow and pedantic approach which led to the finding that the petitioner failed to establish her bona fide need for the suit premises for residence for herself and her family members dependent upon her for residence.
(7) The case of the petitioner as set up in the eviction petition is that the petitioner requires the premises in suit bona fide for occupation as residence for herself and her husband and two daughters who are dependent on her for purposes of residence being members of her family. The petitioner stated that she has shifted to Delhi as her husband has started business at New Delhi, and the petitioner's daughters have started their education at New Delhi. She was residing with her husband and two daughters in a small room as a temporary guest of her younger sister in her sister's house at New Delhi. The said sister was herself living with her in-laws in a joint family house and it was quite awkward for the petitioner to stay with her sister in these circumstances. The learned Additional Rent Controller mainly proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had failed to establish that the husband had shifted his business to Delhi. Further she had admitted that her daughters are studying at Lucknow. thereforee, the plea that the husband had shifted business to Delhi and daughters had started education were found to be unsubstantiated and false. It appeared improbable to the learned Additional Rent Controller that the petitioner would continue to live as a guest of her sister for sucha long time without making her arrangement to live in proper accommodation instead of living with the sister in small room as a temporary guest. Reliance was placed on some documents like voters' list and telephone directory of Lucknowetc. to hold that the petitioner was still residing at Lucknow Along with her husband and, thereforee, her case that she had shifted to Delhi was not believed.
(8) The learned Additional Controller failed to appreciate the distinction between starting business at Delhi and shifting business to Delhi. Starting and shifting are different words having different meaning and connotation. The learned Additional Rent Controller considered the issue on the basis of shifting business at Delhi which naturally required higher standard of proof. When an established business is shifted, one may need office, telephone, staff etc. There may be correspondence also at that address. The learned Additional Rent Controller applied these tests to find out the truthfulness of the plea of the petitioner landlady regarding her husband's business at Delhi. He goes on to say that that was the sole ground for the petitioner to shift to Delhi. The petition was dismissed on the finding that the landlady failed to show that her husband had shifted his business to Delhi. Failure to appreciate the distinction between the shifting business and starting business was the basic flaw in the approach of the Additional Rent Controller.The case of the landlady was that her husband had started business at Delhi. When this is the case one need not establish its truthfulness by showing all that which the Additional Rent Controller felt that the landlady should have shown in the present case.
(9) The Additional Rent Controller ought to have approached the problem in a practical manner. First he had to address himself to the question what should a landlord in the situation in which the petitioner was placed do? Must the landlord rent another accommodation before instituting the eviction petition and continue to stay in rented accommodation for years till the final outcome of the eviction petition. Unmindful of the notorious fact about time consumed in the process of Court before such petitions are decided, the petitioner appears to have shifted to Delhi. Whether the petitioner on shifting to Delhi stays with her mother or her sister does not make any difference so far as the legal position in this behalf is concerned. Admittedly when the property in suit is the only property which the petitioner owns in Delhi she is entitled to stay in her own house rather than stay with her mother as a guest or with her sister as a guest. What is important is that the landlady wants to live in her own house in Delhi. It is neithere stablished from the evidence on record nor this has been disputed before me that in Lucknow the petitioner was residing in a joint family in a premises which is rented by the joint family and not owned by it. Why a landlady who does not own any property in Lucknow and owns only the property in suit in Delhi cannot choose to reside in her own property Along with her family? Desire to live in one'sown house has been accepted as a good ground for purposes of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. When that is so, a landlady living outside Delhi IN a rented accommodation can also desire to live in Delhi in her own house.
(10) The petitioner's case that she has shifted to Delhi as her husband has started business at Delhi and her daughters have started education at Delhi, has to be considered primarily on the basis that the petitioner claims that she has shifted to Delhi. Rest is only her reason for shifting to Delhi. In a given case the reason even if originally there may cease to exist. Still the factum of shifting to Delhi may not disappear. Shifting to Delhi may still hold good even if the reason given for doing so may not survive or is disbelieved. To test this it has to be seen-could the petitioner not say that 'I have shifted to Delhi and I require my property for my residence and residence of my family', without more? Nobody can insist that she must live in Lucknow. The choice is of the landlady where ever she wants to reside. In context of landlord's owning more than one properties in the same city it has been judicially well recognised that the choice is left to the landlord to decide in which property he wants to reside. The issue has to be thus approached with a broad mind and not in a narrow technical manner. The enquiry, thereforee, really has to be whether the petitioner had shifted to Delhi.
(11) About her shifting to Delhi apart from the statement of the petitioner asAW-1, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Ration card, Photostat copy is Ex.AW1/R-1. He has also relied on the correspondence between the parties preceding the filing of the eviction petition. Ex. AW1/R-1, photocopy of the Ration-card shows that the names of the petitioner, her husband and her two daughters are shown Along with the names of the sister of the petitioner and her family at M-134, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi address. The photocopy further shows that the ration card was renewed on 1.1.1983. A photocopy of the Ration-card issued earlier showing the same position has also been placed on record by the petitioner. This document was filed by the petitioner Along with the list of document dated 14/05/1982.Therefore,thismustbeofaperiodpriortothat. I have to say this because the date on this photocopy of Ration-card is notavailable. A Ration-card is an official document which is issued after dueverification. The respondents knew that the petitioner was relying on a Ration card since its photocopy was filed by the petitioner on record on 14/05/1982.If the petitioner had any doubt about the same he could have taken steps by lodging a complaint to the department which would have necessitated fresh verification and if the document was false necessary consequences would havefollowed.
(12) The correspondence preceding the institution of the present petition has to be considered. I attach more weight to this correspondence because this is prior to litigation and also because the same is admitted by the parties. After the parties start litigation or they are in the hands of lawyers they may try to give legalistic answers in order to anticipate certain consequences and to ward off the same. The correspondence between the parties as laymen deserves greaterweightage. AW1/7dated 1.12.1981is the most material document.This is a notice by the petitioner to the respondent in which the petitioner has categorically stated that 'it is becoming extremely difficult for me to stay as a guest with relations.Therefore, I request you to give possession of my house at an early date as it is embarrassing for me to stay with my sister and her in-laws family for such a longtime'. This notice has been sent from M-144, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi, i.e. thesister's house. Tenant's reply tothisnoticeisEx.AWI/18dated5.12.81. First therespondent denies the contents of the notice in general. Then he goes on to say 'it is further wrong to suggest that you are staying as a guest with the relations.You have been fully inhabitated and reasonably suitable accommodation is available at your disposal. It is further wrong to suggest that there is any embarrassment to you in staying with your sister and her in-laws as alleged. For a number of years you are fully inhabited and all possible convenience of residence are available at your disposal'. 'Thus the tenant does not deny the shifting of the petitioner to Delhi nor does he say in so many words that the petitioner was not residing with her sister in Delhi. The respondent tenant could have straightaway said that she was not living in Delhi and she was staying at Lucknow and, thereforee, her averment that she was staying with her sister in New Delhi was false. In view of this documentary evidence coupled with the statement of the petitioner as her own witness it cannot be said that at the time of institution of the eviction petition and in fact before the institution of the petition, the petitioner had not shifted to Delhi.
(13) The petitioner who appeared as AW-1 categorically stated that she does not own any other house in Delhi and that she requires the premises in dispute forher residence and residence of her family consisting of her husband and two daughters who are dependent on her for purposes of residence. She further stated that she was staying with her sister as a temporary guest. She has also shown that it is not convenient for her to stay in the house of her mother because her mother is a religious lady and always there are Poojas and religious discourses in the said house, In cross examination the petitioner again categorically stated that her present address is M-144, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi. She adds that she was residing with her sister at M-144, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi at the time of filing of the eviction petition. In fact the next sentence in her statement is very significant where she says ' I am shuttling between Delhi and Lucknow since then.There is no other address of residing in Delhi'. About her husband she said he is basically staying in Delhi since then though he is traveling a lot. Rest of the crossexamination was mainly directed to demonstrate that her husband had no business at Delhi.
(14) On behalf of the respondent the effort is to show that the petitioner was in fact residing at Lucknow. They have tried to show this from copy of voters'list of Lucknow as also from entries in the Telephone Directory relating toLucknow. Entries in the voters' list and in the Telephone Directory cannot be determinative of the fact about the petitioner's residence at Lucknow. There is no dispute that earlier the petitioner Along with her husband was residing at Lucknow in a joint family with the brother of the husband in a tenanted premises.They have a joint business in the name of Hind Shoe Company in Lucknow. The tenant has not disputed and thereforee it is an established fact on record that the husband and the brother have set up an electrical business in the name of Premier Electric Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Lucknow and factory in SahadatGanj, Lucknow. It is a matter of common knowledge that the entries in thevoters' list and Telephone Directory take years before they are corrected. In fact the telephone department does not even bother about deleting the names of dead persons for years. Apart from this the petitioner has denied that she or her husband had any telephone in Lucknow in the name of either of them and she has disputed those entries on the ground that the address in the entries isincorrect. Without going into this controversy I am of confirmed view that such entries cannot be made a basis for a finding of residence of a person at a particular place. There has to be something more. In the facts of the present case it will be all the more reasonable to say that such entries cannot be relied upon. As stated earlier it is admitted that petitioner was residing at Lucknow Along with her husband before shifting to Delhi. The petitioner has further stated that she keep son shuttling between Delhi and Lucknow. This is so because the petitioner has no proper accommodation to stay at Delhi and the premises in dispute is the only place where she would like to permanently settle down. When the petitioner is shuttling between Lucknow and Delhi the continued appearance of entries qua her and her husband in the voters' list at Lucknow and the Telephone Directory of that city are of no significance.
(15) It has been held by this Court in Aryan Dass v. Mahbub Rai XXVI (1984) DLT 10 (SN), that Electoral Roll entries are very weak type of evidence. Quite often some of the voters are not registered though living in a particular house. The omissions in the electoral roll of a particular member of family was, thereforee,not sufficient to disbelieve the landlord. Likewise converse will also be true.Existence of entries in electoral roll by itself cannot be made the basis of a finding of residence of a person at a particular place. Deletion and addition of names in electoral rolls take their own time. Very often people do not bother about this.
(16) In fact it appears that the daughters of the petitioner who were very young at the time when the petitioner shifted to Delhi had to return to Lucknow for their formal education because of lack of proper residential accommodation at Delhi.When the daughters of the petitioner came to Delhi Along with their mother they were very young being 1 and 5 years old, thereforee, any formal schooling was not as such required. If the petitioner had a regular place for residence of her family,she would have preferred to start the formal education of her daughters at Delhi.Since she was not getting the accommodation what could she do? While staying asa guest of somebody cramped in one room she could not afford to keep her daughters in Delhi when they reached the stage of starting their formal education.It appears that the daughters had to ultimately return to Lucknow to continue their formal education and that is why the petitioner has to shuttle between Delhi and Lucknow. She could not wait indefinitely for proper residence at Delhi and allow the education of her daughters to suffer. The petitioner has said that her daughters also keep on coming to Delhi on holidays otherwise they are staying with their aunt and uncle at Lucknow since they are studying at Lucknow.Without appreciating this problem the learned Additional Rent Controller has drawn an adverse inference from the admission of the petitioner that her daughters were studying in Lucknow. What else the petitioner could do about the education of her daughters in the facts and circumstances of the case when she is unable to get proper accommodation for stay in Delhi. She had to send her daughters back to Lucknow in the interests of their education.
(17) The husb and of the petitioner is also admittedly having his joint business with his brother at Lucknow. His brother is settled at Lucknow where the husband of the petitioner was also settled. They had their family business of Hind Shoe Company. They started a new business under the name of Premier ElectronicPvt. Ltd. meaning thereby they are expanding their horizons. In the process of expansion of their business the husband started exploring the Delhi market. This is what the petitioner means when she says that her husband has started business in Delhi. By this she does not mean that he has set up any factory or office in Delhi.As per the suggestions thrown to RW-1, i.e., respondent No. 1 in crossexamination the husband of the petitioner is apparently doing liaison work for his factory at Lucknow. The other brother may be looking after the factory while the husband of the petitioner is looking after the interest of the said business at Delhi in the shape of finding customers for its products and purchasing raw material for manufacturing the articles. The business at Delhi by the husband does not mean that it has to be a very extensive and broad based business. It must be recalled that the case of the petitioner is that husband has started business at Delhi. Admittedly the husband of the petitioner is the Managing Director ofM/s. Premier Electronic Pvt. Ltd. At this stage of the business having a regular office at Delhi is not a must. The husband makes purchases of raw material at Delhi and he is contacting parties for purposes of sales of the products of the factory for which he must be required to make personal visits to the parties.Having an office at Delhi or correspondence at Delhi is not a must. The petitioner has placed on record bank certificate showing that the business has a bank account in Delhi. Having a bank account may be enough for the purpose of conducting the type of business mentioned above. Ultimately depending on the nature and extent of business the petitioner's husband may have to decide whether to have a regular office in Delhi. The decision has to be his. But converse does notfollow. Without. having office in Delhi it cannot be said that he cannot have business in Delhi or that if he has no office in Delhi that means that he has no business in Delhi. In this process of reasoning the argument that the returns of the business are filed in Lucknow as also the statutory returns required to be filed with the office of Registrar of Companies are filed at Kanpur does not cut any ice.If the registered office of the company is at Lucknow the statutory returns have got to be filed with the Registrar of Companies of the area. Similarly the factory is at Lucknow. Registered office is at Lucknow. Assessments for income-tax andsales-tax, if any, have to be at Lucknow.
(18) The learned Counsel for the respondent has tried to show from the statutory returns of M/s. Premier Electronics Pvt. Ltd. filed with the Registrar of Companies that the residential address of the husband of the petitioner is shown in those returns as that of Lucknow. To my mind nothing turns on this for the reason that the returns are normally filed by the Chartered Accountants who keep on repeating the information on such points as are under reference in this case on the basis of previous years' returns. Secondly, this point is immaterial for the reason that it is apparent from the record that the petitioner or her husband have not totally effaced themselves from Lucknow.
(19) The petitioner has not sought the possession of the premises for purposes of business of her husband. She has sought the possession for purposes for her residence and the residence of her family. thereforee, the question of business of her husband is secondary. The primary question is about the residence of the petitioner in Delhi.
(20) . This also knocks off the argument of the Counsel for the respondent regarding non-production of the husband of. the petitioner in.the witness box and adverse inference to be drawn from that fact. Firstly it was not a must that if the petitioner should shift to Delhi her husband must have business.at Delhi.Secondly, the statement of the petitioner that her husband has started business at Delhi cannot be said to be false merely because no business address or no evidence of business activity could be produced. In the nature of the business of the husband referred to hereinbefore these things were not a sine qua non and, thereforee, this argument cannot be taken to non-suit the petitioner.
(21) The conclusion of the learned Additional Rent Controller for dismissing the eviction petition is mainly based on his finding that the petitioner failed to prove that her husband had shifted his business to Delhi. -As already observed this was not a correct approach. The case of the petitioner is that her husband has started business to Delhi. Looking at it from another angle if the husband of the petitioner had not started his business at Delhi, could the petitioner not decide to stay in Delhi in her own house? The petitioner herself stated that before shifting to Delhi her family was settled at Lucknow. Thereafter the petitioner has shifted to Delhi but till she is able to get proper accommodation for her stay in Delhi she has to shuttle between Lucknow and Delhi. thereforee, it is because of nonavailability of proper residential accommodation in Delhi that the petitioner has been subjected to the plight of shuttling between Delhi and Lucknow. For the same reason the petitioner had to send back her daughters for education at Lucknow and she could not fulfill her wish to start the formal education of her daughters in Delhi in the absence of proper residential accommodation. the petitioner has suffered in various ways.
(22) The respondent appearing as RW-2 has after admitting that the husband of the petitioner is the Managing Director of Premier Electronics Pvt. Ltd., denied all the suggestions about the business of the petitioner at Delhi on account of lack of.knowledge. Suggestions were put to him that the said firm Premier Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was supplying its product to Cement Corporation of India,Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, Delhi College of Engg. Corn. Research Institute of Delhi, I.I.T., Delhi etc. He denied the same on ground of absence ofknowledge. Similarly he denied the suggestion on ground of lack of knowledge that the husband of the petitioner looks after the Delhi business of the said firm.He also denied the suggestions on the same ground to the effect that the company makes its purchases in Delhi and also sells its goods in Delhi. It was suggested to him that it is for purposes of the said business that the husband. of the petitioner lives in Delhi which was of course denied by him.
(23) The point regarding failure to prove the business of the husband of the petitioner at Delhi can be examined from another angle. The petitioner says in the eviction petition that she has shifted to Delhi as her husband has started his business at New Delhi. Suppose the husband who started the business at Delhi could not establish himself in Delhi or did not find it viable to continue business in Delhi thereby stopping the business at Delhi altogether. Will it still be said that for this reason alone it should be found that petitioner had not shifted to Delhi. What about her actual shifting to Delhi? If there is no business of her husband at Delhi can she still not chose to live in Delhi in her own house? The answer has to be in the affirmative.
(24) It is judiciously well recognised that the landlord is the best Judge about his requirements for residence for himself and his family and as to where he wants to reside. If a landlord is resident off a city other than the city in which the premises regarding which eviction is sought is situated, he can chose the city where he wants to reside. Likewise if he has more than one properties in the city it is ultimately his choice as to which property he wants to occupy for his and hisfamily's residence.
(25) In Hi-Bred (India) (P) Ltd. v. Ravi K. & Am. 1989 (2) Rcr 668 it was observed that after all it was for the landlords to make up their minds as to where they would like to live. The landlords in the said case were Green Card holders from the United State. The Immigration Authorities as per the United States Immigration Laws entitle them to permanently stay in the United States. The landlord's case was that they want to reside in their own house which was under the tenancy of the petitioner company. Eviction petition was allowed by theAddl. Rent Controller. This Court dismissed the revision petition of the tenant holding that inspire of the fact that the landlords were Green Cardholders there was nothing wrong in their desire to settle in their house in Delhi. The requirement of the landlord to stay in their house in Delhi was held to be bonafide.
(26) In Usha Sales Ltd. v. Mohini Nayyer, Xxvii : 27(1985)DLT417 this Court again upheld the desire of a landlady to reside in her own house in Delhi after her retirement as a teacher in United Kingdom. The landlady filed the eviction petition in the year 1980 when she was due to retire in 1982. It was also stated on behalf of the tenant that the petition was premature. This objection of the tenant was also turned down with the observation that it is not necessary that after retirement she must come to Delhi and start staying in rented accommodation or at the mercy of relations. In the case in hand in fact the petitioner started residing in Delhi at the mercy of her relations. Still the requirement of the landlady was held to be not bona fide. The ratio of this judgment is also a complete answer to the argument on behalf of the respondent tenant that the daughters of the petitioner are staying at Lucknow. The ration card entries show that the daughters had also come to Delhi when the petitioner shifted to Delhi so as to start their education in Delhi. Undoubtedly as compared to Lucknow the education facilities in Delhi are better and landlord's desire that her daughters should get education at Delhi cannot be said to be mala fide. Parents wish that their children should get best education. Further in this connection it is to be noted that if a petitioner gives more than one reason for shifting to Delhi and one of those reasons is found to be unsubstantiated or false, it does not mean that the entire case mustfall. In his anxiety to get the relief a petitioner may overstate him/her case. If the case is disbelieved on one aspect it does not mean that it should failaltogether. (S. Kapur v. 0m Prakash Sharma 17 (1980) Dlt 256.
(27) Starting business at Delhi cannot be taken to mean that the entire business has to shift to Delhi which may require proper business office, telephone, staff etc.For starting a business it need not even have an office in Delhi. These things come along with the progress of the business and disappear if the business does notthrive. Further these things have to be considered in the background of the nature of the business. As already seen for sales and purchases and that too in thebeginning, a proper office, telephone, staff etc. were not essential
(28) To meet the arguments of the respondent that adverse inference should be drawn from the fact of non-production of the husband of the petitioner in the witness box, the petitioner has filed an application in these proceedings under Order 41 Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code (C.M. No. 2303/94) for permission to produce her husband as a witness. The view I have taken on this aspect of the case does not leave any scope for the argument regarding adverse inference to be drawn on account of non-production of husband as a witness. For the same reason I do not consider it necessary to go into the controversy as to whether application under Order41,Rule27, Civil Procedure Code should be allowed or not. The application is not necessary and is disposed of as such.
(29) The case of the respondent was also that the eviction petition was malafide because the petitioner wants to enhances rent since rents in the locality have gone up. Except his word of mouth there is nothing on record in support of this plea which is usually taken by all the tenants. The falsity of the plea is demonstrated from the fact that correspondence between parties preceded filing of the eviction petition. The correspondence nowhere shows any attempt for increase of rent on the part of the petitioner. The rent has remained the same throughout.
(30) In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the petitioner was setting up a false case in order to throw out the tenant and get possession of the premises in suit. To alley any apprehension on the part of the tenant against the landlady in this behalf reference to Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is enough. The said provision takes care of such mala fide attempt son the part of owners/landlords. thereforee, law has not left the matter to the choice of the owner/landlord nor the tenant has been left at the mercy of the owner/landlord in such matters.
(31) The conclusion of the learned Additional Rent Controller that the sole ground for the bona fide need of the petitioner for the premises in dispute is the shifting of business by her husband at Delhi is totally incorrect. This is the result of the wrong approach to the problem. Shifting of business to Delhi is not the landlady'scase. The case of the petitioner is that she had shifted to Delhi and she requires the premises in suit for her residence and the residence of her family members dependent upon her for that purpose. Her husband has started business at Delhi.The result of the above discussion is that the requirement of the petitioner to reside in the premises in suit Along with members of her family cannot be doubted nor can it be said that it is not bona fide. The petition is allowed. An order of eviction is passed against the respondents and they are directed to hand oyer vacant possession of the entire tenancy premises being No. M-134, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi, to the petitioner. The respondents are allowed six months' time in view of provisions of Section 14(7) of the Act. No costs.