JUDGMENT
Sultan Singh, J.
(1) This revision petition under Seiction. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against the judgment and order of eviction dated 6th September 1985 passed by Mr. J.M. Malik, Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act against the petitioner.
(2) On 14/3/1980 the respondents Shri T.N. Idnani and his wife Mr. Gangabai Idnani filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner on ground of bona fide requirement under. Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. The respondents were allowed to amend the eviction petition and the amended petition is dated 23rd September 1981. They alleged that the petitioner was their tenant in one and a half storey building with garden, terrace and out houses at B-19, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi shown in the plan attached on a monthly rent of Rs. 2500.00 besides electricity and water charges; the premises were let for residential purposes in the first week’ of October, 1978 ; they were the owners of the premises which were required bona fide by them for occupation as residence for themselves and for members of their family defendant upon them, they had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation ; they were in possession of two bed rooms with attached baths, one study room one drawing-cum-dining room, one kitchen and one garage at D-403, defense Colony, New Delhi on rent since May, 1964 ; their family consisted of themselves, their unmarried daughter, their married son and his wife; their son was re-transferred to Delhi in June, 1981; the existing accommodation was grossly inadequate for their requirements ; respondent No. I had received a notice dated 28/4/1980 from his landlord Shri A. D. Khanna through Shri G. L. Mehra Advocate calling upon him to vacate the premises under his tenancy.
(3) The petitioner-tenant in his amended written statement dated 5/3/1984 pleaded that the premises were not let for any specific purpose and the same could be used for residential-cum-commercial purposes ; the agreed rent was exhorbitant and he had applied for fixation of standard rent ; the respondents were not the owners ; the house belonged to their son Lalit ; the premises were not required by them and their claim was bogus, sham and mala fide. It was denied that the respondents were living in tenanted premises ; the notice dated 28/4/1980 from the landlord of respondent No. I was a fabricated one ; the respondents were interested in enhancing rent and therefore in May, 1979 the respondent No. I brought to him a draft lease deed for a period of two years in the first instance renewable for a further term of two years subject to increase in monthly rent by 10% and in case of increase in taxes, the liability would be of the petitioner ; the respondent had not mentioned in the draft lease deed, the rate of rent but they had demanded enhanced rent at Rs. 3000.00 per month ; the petitioner did not agree to the enhancement and other clauses in the draft lease deed ; the respondents raised a false claim of bona fide requirement ; the claim was mala fide ; the premises in suit had fallen vacant in October, 1978 and in case the same were required by them they would have occupied the same instead of letting it out to the petitioner ; at the time of letting, the petitioner was given to understand that the premises were let on permanent basis ; the tenancy was created orally and no regular lease deed was executed for any specific period ; there had been no change in the circumstances of the respondents since the letting of the premises and as such they were not entitled to an order of eviction. The respondents in their replication reiterated their case.
(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of the Rent Controller are based on no evidence. The parties have taken me through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. Respondent No. 1 examined himself as A.W.I. He has deposed that he and his wife are the owners of the suit premises ; they constructed the premises and the original sub lease was executed in their favor by the Government Servants Co-op. House Building Society (Ex. A.W. 1/1); the premises were let for residential purposes to the petitioner ; he has been residing at D-403 defense Colony, New Delhi consisting of two bed rooms with attached baths, one drawing-cum-dining room and one study room ; his family consists of himself his wife, his unmarried daughter, son, son’s wife, with one child, and at the time of letting the family consisted of three members only ; his son was transferred in June, 1981 and since then he has been residing with him ; the son and daughter are dependent upon him for residence and they have no other residential accommodation ; he sent a reply to notice dated 28/4/1980 from his landlord Mr. A. D. Khanna ; he requires the premises bona fide. In cross-examination he admits that first rent receipt is Ex. R-1, the draft lease. deed Ex. R-2 is in his hand and the rate of rent in the draft lease deed was left blank. He denies that he asked the petitioner in May, 1979 to execute I ease deed with enhancement of rent by 10%. He says that his daughter is working in D.D.A. as Economist (Gazetted officer) and his income from interest and dividend is Rs. 20,000.00 yearly. Lt. Col. Lalit Chander Idnani was examined as A.W. 2. He has corroborated the statement of his father A.W. 1. Mrs. Renu ldnani, daughter-in-law of respondent No. 1 was examined as A.W. 3. She has deposed that she was working as Fashion Consultant with Old Village Industry with monthly income of Rs. 5000.00 , she has two children and a servant living with her father-in-law in Delhi ; the child was studying in nursery school; in July, 1983 her husband was transferred to Nasirabad. The respondents placed on record sanctioned plan of suit premises (Ex. AX) besides lease deed of plot Ex. A.W. I/I.
(5) The petitioner-tenant examined himself only as R.W. 1. He has deposed that there was no agreement in writing but a receipt of Rs. 7500.00 was issued for advance rent for three months,’in May 1979 the respondent brought a draft lease deed Ex. R-2 and asked him to increase the rent to Rs. 3000.00 ; he has been using the premises as residence-cum-business purposes. In Cross-examination he admits that he had written the letter dated 25/2/1980 Ex. R.W. 1/PX to the respondents. He says, “the mention in the letter that I am not dealing any business in the premises in incorrect”. He further states that he told the respondent that he does business only through the help of correspondence.
(6) On the evidence briefly referred to above, the Rent Controller held that the respondents were the owners, the premises were let for residential purposes and the same were required bona fide by them for occupation as residence for themselves and for their family members dependent upon them and they had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the findings of the Rent Controller are based on no evidence.
(7) Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant further submits that (1) the original eviction petition is not in accordance with the Delhi Rent Control Rules as the extent of existing accommodation and the family members of the landlord were not mentioned therein (2) the premises were not let for any specific purpose and as such the premises could be used for residence as well as commercial purposes, (3) the respondents submitted the draft lease deed Ex. R-2 and demanded enhanced rent Rs. 3000.00 per month and therefore the alleged requirement was malafide (4) the Additional Rent Controller erred in granting leave to the respondent to amend the eviction petition by order dated 15/12/1981 on the ground that the proposed amendment was an after-though, (5) the plan Ex. Ax of the suit premises was not proved in accordance with law.
(8) After the institution of the present revision petition the respondents on 5/5/1986 filed an application (C.M. No. 2521 of 1986) under Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for taking note of subsequent events. The respondents allege that A.D. Khanna, landlord of respondent No. 1 .obtained an order of eviction from the court of Shri J. M. Malik Rent ‘Controller, Delhi under Section 14(l)(h) of the Act on 15/4/1986, and the appeal preferred by respondent No. I against the said judgment was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal.
(9) Learned counsel for the tenant submits that the order dated 16/12/1981 allowing the respondents leave to amend the eviction petition is contrary to law. He says that in the original eviction petition the respondents had not indicated .the existing accommodation available with them and also the details of the family members dependent upon them. The application for leave to amend was an after-thought. The petitioner in his written statement had pleaded that particulars of family and accommodation with the respondents ought to have been given. The application was accordingly made which was allowed on the ground that there was no change of the circumstances. Learned Counsel submits that as the extent of existing accommodation and details of family members were not given in the original eviction petition the same was bed and ought to have been dismissed. I do not agree. The original eviction petition does disclosed a cause of action. The petition mentions all the ingredients of Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. It was on account of the objections of the petitioner that the respondents sought leave to amend the eviction petition which was allowed. I do not find any infirmity in allowing leave to amend the written statement.
(10) Learned counsel next submits that in para 8 of the eviction. petition the respondents have not given the details of the accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner. His argument is that giving of details of accommodation is mandatory. This is wrong. Rule requires furnishing of the details of accommodation in the prescribed from under the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1958. In para 8 the respondents mentioned that one and a half storey building, with garden, terrace and out-houses shown in the plan attached was the accommodation with the petitioner. This description is more than sufficient as the entire house at, B-l9 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was let to the petitioner.
(11) Next it is submitted that there was no agreement of letting but a receipt Ex. R-l was executed which is for Rs. 7500.00 as an advance rent for three months. It is argued that as no purpose of letting is mentioned in the receipt the premises can be used both for residential and commercial purposes. It is submitted that the petitioner has beep using the premises for residence as well as commercial purposes. There is no evidence of any commercial activity in the premises, except oral statement of the petitioner as R.W. 1. On the other hand the respondent No. I has deposed that the premises were let for residential purposes that the property was constructed on a leasehold plot of land which was granted for the purpose of building a residential house as per lease deed Ex. A.W. 1/1. Further the petitioner tenant in his letter dated 25/2/1980 to respondent No. 1 (Ex. R.W 1/PX) admitted that he was not dealing with any business in the premises. The letter states “I never stated in the letter that I have established my business in the premises or that the premises is being used for business purposes. I had only stated that I had established my business at Delhi.” It is therefore established beyond doubt that the premises were let only for residential purposes.
(12) Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the draft lease deed Ex. R-2 was brought to the petitioner in May 1979, with a view to increase the rent Ex. R-2 is a draft in the ‘hand of respondent No. 1. It is not signed by either party. It does not mention the rate of rent. Although the draft is in the hand of respondent No. I but it does not prove any fact relevant to the present dispute between the parties As parties do not agree to the various terms contained in the draft, it has never executed. The argument is that orally enhanced rent of Rs. 3000.00 was demanded and as the petitioner refused to enhance the rent the present eviction has been filed. It is not correct to say so. The respondents and their family are in possession of premises No. D-403 defense Colony, New Delhi and the Rent Controller held that the accommodation with them was not sufficient for their requirement. Mere oral allegations that the respondents demanded enhanced rent is meaningless. In all cases where eviction is claimed by the landlord on ground of bona fide requirement it is a general defense of a every tenant that the landlord demands enhanced rent. It maybe that on account of rise in prices the landlord may demand enhance rent but merely asking for enhanced rent does. not mean that the requirement is mala fide.
(13) Next it is submitted that the plan Ex. Ax was not proved in- accordance with law. It is apparent that the plan Ex. Ax is a plan sanctioned by the D.D.A. for the construction of the property at the plot in question. It bears the endorsement of the officials of the D.D.A. further when it was tendered and marked as Ex. Ax no objection as regards mode of proof was raised on behalf of the tenant. No mistake in the plan has been pointed out on behalf of the tenant.
(14) It is admitted by the petitioner tenant that respondent No. I is a tenant at D-403, defense Colony, ‘New Delhi under A. D. Khanna. Mr. Khanna filed an eviction petition under Section’ 14(l)(h) of the Act on 20th May 1984 alleging that respondent No. I had built a residential house at B-19 Vasant Marg Vasant Vihar, New Delhi i.e. the premises now under the occupation of the petitioner. An order of eviction was passed by Mr. J. M. Malik Rent Controller. On 15/4/1986 and the first appeal of the respondent was dismissed by the Rent .Control Tribunal on 25th April 1986. Respondent “No. 1 also filed second appeals (SAO No. 159/86) which has been dismissed by a separate judgment today. Thus the respondents have to vacate the premises now in their occupation D-403, defense Colony, New Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a collusive order of eviction. I do not agree. What is the collusion ? Respondent No. 1 became a tenant at D-403 defense Colony owned by A.D. Khanna somewhere in 1964-65. He built the residential premises at B-19, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi i.e. the premises in suit under occupation of the petitioner-tenant in 1972. The ground of eviction under section 14(l)(h) of the Act is available to Shri A.D. Khanna landlord of respondent No. 1. There is no question of any collusion a tenant was built his own residential building after the commencement of his, tenancy has no right to continue to retain the tenanted premises (Avinash Kaur v. Dr. Beli Ram, 1970 R.C.J. 995 (D.B,).
(15) Learned counsel for the petitioner next submit that he never had any opportunity to challenge the eviction petition filed by A.D. Khanna against respondent No. 1. He says that subsequent facts relating to the passing of an order of eviction against respondent No. 1 cannot be taken into consideration and the present evict ion. .petition against the petitioner should be decided, on the basis of the allegations contained in the eviction petition. There is no merit in this argument.
(16) In Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul and others v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri and others, Air 1941 Federal court 5, it has been observed that the hearing of an appeal under the procedural law of India is in the nature of re-hearing and therefore in moulding the relief to be granted in a case on appeal the appellate court is entitled to take into account even fact and events which have come into existence after the decree appealed against.
(17) IN. Pasupuleti Venkateshwarlu v. The Motor and General Traders, , it has been observed that the High Court is bound to take note of subsequent events in disposing of proceedings under the Rent Control Act by a landlord against his tenant. The Supreme Court observed “We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, an in many cases must, take cautions cognisance of events and developments ..subsequent to the institution of the proceedings provided .the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed.
(18) Re : Mrs. Mohini Suraj Bhan v. Vinod Kumar Mittal, is a case relating to eviction on ground of bona fide requirement under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. In that case the landlady in her eviction petition had alleged that there was pressure on her to vacate the rented premises at New Delhi from her own landlord and later on her landlord filed an eviction petition and served a summons on her. The landlady made an application before the High Court for permission to lead additionalevidenceunderOrder4lRule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was rejected on the ground that the said evidence was irrelevant because no eviction order had been passed and till that was done the evidence would not be relevant. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court and passed the order of eviction in favor of landlady observing that filing of the eviction petition and service of summons upon the landlady corroborated her case, that there was pressure. upon her to vacate the rented premises. In the instant case an order of eviction against the respondent was passed by the Rent Controller confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. This court by a separate judgment today has confirmed’ the order ‘of eviction against respondent No. 1 (SAO No, 159 of 1986).
(19) Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the respondents do not require the suit premises and the requirement is not bona fide. It is well settled that the word require’ in section 14(i)(e) of the Act denotes a need and not mere” a’ wish or’ ‘desire. Further requirement of the landlord must be honest and genuine and not frivolous or whimsical Sat Pal v. Nand Kishore and another, 2nd (1983) I Delhi 73.) In the instant case I hold that the respondents need the suit house for their occupation. The landlord of respondent No. I has obtained an order of eviction under Section 14(l)(h) of the Act against him and the respondents have no place for their own living. Their requirement cannot, be termed as whimsical or frivolous. Their claim for the eviction of the petitioner is fully justified under Section 14(i)(e) of the Act.
(20) The revision petition has no merit and it is therefore dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 50.00 .