Renu Seth Vs. Industrial and Allied Sales (P) Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
the case involved a revision petition filed under order 41 rule 27 of the civil procedure code, 1908, by the owner-landlady, against the dismissal of her petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25-b of the delhi rent control act, 1958 - an application was also filed under order 41 rule 27 of the code - the petitioners had placed documents along with the application, supporting the fact they were shifted to delhi - in view of the fact, it was ruled that revision would be allowed with direction to additional rent controller that opportunity would be given to the petitioners to prove the documents on account of change in circumstances - - has been taken over by the government and the petitioner's husband started another pencil factory in lucknow which has also failed.n.n. goswamy, j.(1) this revision petition under section 25-b(8) of the delhi rent control act has been filed by the owner-landlady against the dismissal of her petition under section 14(l)(e) read with section 25-b of the act. (2) the petitioner had pleaded in paragraph 18-a of the petition as under: 'the petitioner is the owner/landlady of the house no. 18 rajdoot marg, chankayapuri, new delhi and bonafide requires the suit premises under the occupation of the respondent for herself and the members of her family who are dependent upon her and that the premises were let out to the respondent for residential purposes only. the petitioner is at present living in a rented house at lucknow. the petitioner's husband who was running a sugar factory in u.p. has been taken over by the government and the petitioner's husband started another pencil factory in lucknow which has also failed. the petitioner and her family members want to settle down at delhi to start new business in delhi. the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation available with her and in fact she has no other house any where in india- neither the petitioner nor any members of her family owns any other house in delhi or india. besides the petitioner and her husband, the petitioner has two sons aged 25 years, 20 years old and a daughter aged 22 years and her mother-in-law. the younger son of the petitioner is a heart-patient and had an open heart surgery in u.s.a. and now he needs special treatment and the same is available in the all india institute of medical sciences, at new delhi.'(3) the petition was contested by the respondent-tenant. various pleas regarding the ownership and the petition being malafide were taken by the respondent. the parties led their evidence in support of their respective cases. during the course of trial there is no clear evidence of the petitioner to the effect that she along with her family has shifted to delhi. rather the evidence is confiscator and it cannot be gathered as to at what point of time, if at all, the petitioner has shifted along with her family. the learned additional rent controller has recorded the findings that there is nothing to show that the petitioner has given up the rented house at lucknow, they have shifted to delhi. in these circumstances the petition was dismissed. (4) in this revision petition the petitioner has filed an application under order 41 rule 27 of the code of civil procedure. it has been pleaded in the application that the petitioner along with her family have permanently shifted to delhi and their son who was earlier employed in a firm in delhi has started business and has taken a house for himself and for the family under section 21 of the delhi rent control act. various other documents supporting the petitioner's having shifted to delhi have also been annexed with the application. it has. however, been pleaded that the house which had been acquired by the family under section 21, has now to be vacated and an undertaking has been given in the court to the effect that vacant possession of the said house will be given to the landlord on or before the 19th of december, 1987. i have carefully considered the documents annexed to the application under order 41 rule 27. the said documents cannot be relied upon as the same have not been proved in accordance with the law. none of the documents is in the nature of public document which by itself can be taken as a proof. in reply to the application the allegations have been denied and in the circumstances it is necessary that the petitioner be given an opportunity to prove the said documents. i am of the considered opinion that if the finding is returned in favor of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner has in tact, shifted and had been residing in a rented house, the requirement of the petitioners would be bonafide and the petitioner would be entitled to the order of eviction. in the circumstances the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the addl. rent controller is set aside. the case is sent back to the addl. rent controller with the directions that an opportunity be given to the petitioner to prove the documents resulting in the changed circumstances. it is needless to say that the respondent-tenant will have the right to rebut the same. i would, thereforee, clarify that the counsel for the parties have confined their arguments to the bona-fide requirement of the petitioner and have not challenged any other findings recorded by the addl. rent controller. thus on remand the controversy will be limited to the bona fide requirement of the petitioner. in the circumstances mentioned in the application read with the main petition. since the petitioner has undertaken to vacate the rented house in december 1987, it is directed that the addl. rent controller will dispose of the entire matter within three months even if day to day proceedings have to be taken. (5) the parties are directed to appear before the addl. rent controller on 16th february 1987. the matter should be disposed of latest by the end of may, 1987. the petitioner has filed the documents relating to the lease deed under section 21 which have not been taken on record at the request of the petitioner. the petitioner will be at liberty to prove all these documents before the addl. rent controller. in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.