NavIn Kumar Goel Vs. Jawahar Lal Wahi - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - it is now well settled that some provision has to be made for the visiting married daughter/daughters.goswamy, j. (1) this revision petition under section 25b(8) of the delhi rent control act by the tenant is directed against the eviction order dated 6.10.1986 passed by the addl. rent controller, delhi. (2) the respondent-landlord-owner had filed a petition for eviction under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25b of the delhi rent control act as far back as july, 1981. it was alleged that the premises were. let for residential purpose and the same were bona fide required by the landlord for residence for himself and members of his family dependent upon him. it was further alleged that the respondent was the owner of the premises in dispute and he had no other suitable accommodation. the family of the respondent at that time consisted of himself, his wife, one married son, one daughler-in-law, one grand daughter aged about six months and daughter aged about 19 years. the accommodation available with the respondent was a drawing-cum-dining room, and two bed rooms besides the toilets w.c. and the kitchen. (3) the petitioner-tenant filed an application for leave to defend. on consideration of the entire material, the leave was refused and an eviction order was passed by the addl. rent controller after considering the entire material placed on record, came to the conclusion that the respondent was the owner, the purpose of letting was residential and that the requirement of the respondent was bona fide. consequently the eviction order was passed. (4) in this petition by the tenant, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has sought to raise many points. it has been contended that the respondent was not the owner inasmuch as he was only a lessee of the land and as such the ownership vests with the government and not with the respondent. this argument has only to be rejected in view of the settled position in this court as also in the supreme court. the next contention of the learned counsel is that section 14(1)(e) of the delhi rent control act is ultra virus to article 19 of the constitution inasmuch as a person has a right to live in any house he likes. according to the learned counsel, even if a person has retired from the government or private job and wants to occupy his own house his requirement cannot be considered to be bona fide because after retirement he has no right to live in delhi and be should seek his shelter else where. further contention is that a period of six months as provided in section 14(1) of the act has become illusory since it is not possible for a tenant to find more or less equal accommodation at equal rent during this period. the act nowhere suggests to the tenant to find equal accommodation at equal rent. this is only a breathing time given by the statute to the tenant to find an alternate accommodation for the simple reason that the eviction is not due to any fault of the tenant and the tenant must have a reasonable time to look for alternate accommodation. this argument, in my opinion, has absolutely no substance and has to be rejected. (5) the only serious argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the requirements of the respondent-landlord and according to him, the requirements are not bona fide. admittedly, the family of the landlord consists of himself, his wife, his son, son's wife and two children aged 7 years and 3 years. the accommodation available with the respondent is drawing-cum-dining room and two bed rooms. it has been found by the addl. rent controller that the family is a family of status. according to the learned counsel, the respondent has since retired and as such he can no longer be said to be a person of status. this is again an imaginary argument because a person does not lose his status after retirement and he is entitled to the same amenity if he can afford. my practice has also been to see if the family members can be accommodated in the existing accommodation and if the answer is in the affirmative, the eviction petition has to be dismissed but if the answer is in the negative the eviction petition has to be allowed. there is no provision for considering comparative hardship in delhi. all that has to be seen is whether the requirements of the landlord are bona fide and he needs the accommodation and further his needs are not fanciful. in the present case, according to me one room is required by the respondent and his wife, one room is required for the married son and his wife. thus there is no accommodation for the two children and for visiting married daughter, who may visit her parents with her husband and children. it is now well settled that some provision has to be made for the visiting married daughter/daughters. even if the requirement of the visiting married daughter is not taken into consideration still the respondents have no place to accommodate the two children. particularly, when one of them is a school-going child and the other is likely to go to the school very soon. thus i hold that the addl. rent controller was justified in holding that the requirements of the respondents were bona fide. (6) yet another contention has been raised to the effect that during the pendency of this petition, the barsati floor had fallen vacant and a new tenant had been inducted. it is not disputed that this floor was offered to the petitioner and an option was given to him to shift to the said floor if he so wanted. according to the respondent the accommodation was not suitable for various reasons and as such he did not occupy it. the family of the respondent is such that it was not possible to bifurcate at that time because the barsati floor was insufficient for the married son and his family and not suitable for the old respondent and his wife. there was yet another factor which compelled them not to shift to the barsati floor and that was during the summer it is very hot and during the winter it was very cold and there was no water supply. it has not been disputed that this accommodation was offered to the petitioner and it was kept vacant for some time rather for over two years. admittedly, the petitioner was not willing to shift to the barsati floor and it was relent to another person. in the circumstances, this cannot amount to mala fide on the part of the landlord and the learned rent controller is right in recording a note to that effect. (7) for the reasons recorded above, i do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. there will be no order as to costs. the petitioner is, however, granted three months' time to vacate the premises this time is granted subject to the condition that the arrears of rent should be paid within one week from to-day, which according to the respondent is due from september 1, 1986. the petitioner will also continue to pay the future rent for these three months. in case, the arrears are not paid, as directed, the eviction order will be executable forthwith.