JUDGMENT
R.C. Chopra, J.
1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Act” only) is directed against an order dated 26th
April, 2001 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller
in E.No. 212/1994 allowing the respondent’s petition
under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act and passing eviction
orders against the petitioner in respect of suit
premises at 256, Gali Prakash, Teliwari, Delhi. This
order shall also dispose of the petitioner’s application
No. CM-967/2002 under Section 151 of the CPC for
permission to bring on record subsequent events.
2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the
petition and the application under Section 151 of the
CPC filed by the petitioner-tenant, briefly stated, are
that the respondent had failed a petition for eviction
against petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act
alleging that the petitioner was a tenant in suit
premises but the said premises were required bonafide by
him for himself and his family members for residential
use. The respondent alleged that his family consisted
of himself, his wife and two children who were school
going at the time of filing the petition. The
respondent-landlord also had mother and a married sister
also who occasionally visited him and stayed with him on
festivals and functions. It was stated that on other
tenant in the property, Rajesh Kumar had assured to
vacate one room and a kitchen in his tenancy on the
second floor of suit property but even after the
recovery of the said portion, the respondent would be
short of accommodation and would require premises in
possession of the tenant/petitioner.
3. The petitioner/tenant was granted leave to defend
the eviction petition. He contested the eviction
petition mainly on the ground that respondent was
neither owner nor landlord of the premises in question
and there was no privity of contract between the
parties. It was also contended that the respondent was
residing in House No. 491, Mahavir Bazar, Delhi and was
keeping the first and second floor of the House No. 256.
Gali Prakash, Teliwara, Delhi vacant and as such, the
accommodation with him was already more than sufficient.
The plea of bonafide requirement was stated to be sham
and bogus and motivated by the reason that the rent
being paid by the petitioner was too low. It was stated
that other tenant Rajesh Kumar had already vacated the
premises in his possession and handed over the same to
the respondent.
4. The parties led their evidence before the learned
ARC. After considering the evidence on record and
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the
learned ARC held that the respondent was the
owner-landlord of the premises in question: premises
had been let out for residential purpose; the
respondent had no other alternative accommodation
available to him and he was in bonafide need of the
premises in question. Accordingly, the impugned
eviction order was passed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has
vehemently argued before this Court that till date, the
respondent-landlord was residing in premises No. 491,
Mahavir Bazar, Delhi and had not shifted to the suit
premises and as such, he was guilty of concealment of
material facts. It is also argued that the respondent
had not come to the Court with clearing hands in as much as
in the sale deed dated 8.8.1989 in respect of the suit
premises in his favor, it was stated that vacant
possession of the property was being handed over to the
respondent which clause was falsely introduced as the
respondent wanted and in fact tried to dispossess the
petitioner by use of force. It is argued that the
respondent-landlord had no bonafide need and he wanted
to evict the petitioners the rent being paid by the
petitioner was only Rs. 10/- per month.
6. In the application IA.No. 967/2002 under Section
151 CPC, certain documents were sought to be brought to
the notice of the court to show that even up to 2001, the
respondent-landlord was actually living in property
No. 491, Mahavir Bazar, Delhi and the correspondence
addressed to him at the premises in question was being
returned back with the remarks that he was not living
there.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other
hand, has vehemently argued that this, exercising
power under Section 25-B(8) of the Act, must refrain
from interfering with the order passed by the learned
ARC if the same is in accordance with law and is not
perverse, unreasonable or erroneous. It is submitted
that the premises No. 491, Mahavir Bazar, Delhi are under
the tenancy of the mother of the respondent where the
respondent has been living prior to the purchase of the
suit property and even if letters are being received at
the said address and letters at suit premises are being
re-directed to the said address it would not show that
the respondent does not require the premises in question
for his residential use. It is argued that the
respondent having no other alternative accommodation and
being the owner of the premises in question is entitled
to an order of eviction against the petitioner. It is
also submitted that the averments in the Sale Deed do
not negative the plea of bonafide need as raised by the
respondent and even if he had tried to dispossess the
petitioner forcibly, that would not go to show that he
does not need the premises for residential use. It is
submitted that the petitioner is having only two rooms
on the first floor and one room on the second floor.
The kitchen is on the second floor and there is no WC on
the first or the second floor and the respondent and his
family have to share WC with the petitioner-tenant at
the ground floor. It is submitted that the respondent’s
son even is now of marriageable age and as such, he also
requires sufficient accommodation to live comfortably
with his parents after marriage. It is pointed out that
even petitioner’s witnesses RWs 4 & 5 could not
satisfactorily prove on record that the respondent was
not living in the premises in question. It is argued
that the documents filed by the petitioner along with CM
No. 967/2002 even if taken into consideration, do not
negative the respondent’s case of bonafide need for
residential purposes.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through
the records of the case.
9. The law is well settled that the powers of the
High Court under Section 25-B(8) of the Act are not as
wide as those of an Appellate Court. The High Court
must not appreciate or reappreciate the evidence on
record merely because it is inclined to take a different
view. In Shiv Kumar Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta , Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti,
speaking for the Bench discussed in detail the
parameters within which the High Court should remain
while exercising jurisdiction under section 25-B(8) of
the Act. His lordship held that the High Court has to
test the order of the Rent Controller on the touchstone
of ‘whether it is according to law’ and for this purpose
alone the High Court may enter into reappraisal of
evidence. In case the High Court comes to the
conclusion that the view taken by the Rent Controller is
not according to law or wholly unreasonable or such that
no reasonable person acting objectively could take such
a view the High Court would be justified in substituting
its view but not otherwise.
10. In the present case the respondent-landlord was
living in a tented house and there is nothing on record
to show that he is having any other alternative
residential accommodation. A landlord living in a
rented house of his mother has every right to insist
that he wants to shift to his own house. Even if the
plea of the respondent landlord regarding his stay in
some portions of suit property had been found to be
false and he had been found living with his other family
members in the rented house at 491, Mahabir Bazar, Delhi
that could not be a ground to hold that his need for the
suit premises for residential use is not bonafide. The
fact that the letters received in the name of the
respondent are still being received at the address of
491, Mahabir Bazar, Delhi or the letters addressed to
him on the suit premises are being re-directed to the
aforesaid premises with the reports that he is not
living in the suit premises is of no consequence as
these facts do not show that the respondent’s
requirement of the premises is not bonafide. If on
account of paucity of accommodation in the suit premises
the respondent is continuing to use the tenanted
premises of his mother also which are near-by, that is
not a ground to reject his plea of bonafide requirement.
The evidence on record satisfactorily shows that the
respondent, his wife and his children who are of
marriageable age are short of accommodation. Even after
receipt of one room from another tenant Rajesh Kumar the
respondent and his family require additional
accommodation as the respondent’s son is of marriageable
age and he needs a room for his mother, sister and
guests also. The only kitchen available in the house is
on the second floor and the WC is available on the
ground floor only which the respondent cannot
conveniently share with the petitioner and his family.
Therefore, there is no doubt about the genuine
requirement of the premises in question by the
respondent. The sale deed in favor of the respondent
proves on record that he is the owner-landlord of the
premises in question. The plea of the petitioner that
he has no privity of contract with the respondent is
wholly untenable.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
argued that the respondent is not entitled to relief as
claimed for the reason that in the sale deed in respect
of the suit property it was falsely averred that the
property in question was vacant and thereafter the
respondent even tried to dispossess the petitioner from
the suit premises by use of force. This Court is of the
opinion that this plea cannot be sustained for defeating
the respondent’s case as in much as the respondent’s
conduct might not have been gentlemanly but it stemmed
from this need only.
12. Learned Addl. Rent Controller after considering
the evidence on record had come to the conclusion that
the respondent was the owner landlord of the premises in
question and he bonafide required the premises in
possession of the petitioner for his residential use.
It was also held that the respondent had not other
alternative residential accommodation. The eviction
order passed against the petitioner was in accordance
with law. This Court does not find any infirmity with
the view taken by learned ARC and as such is of the
considered view that it is not a fit case in which this
Court should interfere in exercise of powers under
Section 25B(8) of the Act.
CM.No. 967/2002 stands disposed of.
13. The petition CR.No. 853/2001, however, stands
dismissed.