JUDGMENT
Sunanda Bhandare, J.
(1) These three revision petitions are directed against the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the Controller) dated 11.4.1989 whereby the three eviction petitions filed by Smt. Saraswati who is the landlady of the property in dispute were disposed of by a common judgment. Civil Revision No. 806/1989 and Civil Revision no. 807/89 are filed by the tenants Trilok Nath Kuadra and Sita Ram Verma and Civil Revision No. 912/1989 is filed by the landlady Smt. Saraswati. The Controller disposed of the three eviction petitions by a common judgment because the three eviction petitions were consolidated and evidence was recorded in only one of the eviction petitions i.e. Eviction Petition no. 134 of 1988.
(2) The case of the landlady before the Controller in all the three eviction petitions was that the three premises let out to the three tenants in the same building for residence were required bona fide for herself and members of her family dependent upon her. The landlady, therefore, sought their eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(3) It was submitted that the family of the landlady comprises of herself her husband, mother in law, two sons, one daughter in law and one grand son! She requires two rooms for her mother in law; one to be used as Jiving room, and the other to be used as Pooja room on the ground floor as she could not climb stairs, one room is required by her and her husband, one bed room for the younger son, one bed room for elder son and his wife, one drawing room one dining room, one guest room, one study room and one room for the servant. Initially, she bad stated that the husband of the landlady Dr. R.P. Singh was working as a Professor and Head of Department of Chemistry in University of Delhi. He was appointed as Master of Jubilee Hall for two years and allotted accommodation by Delhi University in Jubilee Hall and after his retirement he would have to surrender that accommodation and thus she would require the demised premises for her own occupation. At a subsequent stage, the eviction petition was amended and it was submitted that the husband of the landlady had already retired and he had vacated the premises at Jubilee Hall and shifted to 10 Cavalry Lines, Delhi i.e. another accommodation temporarily allotted by Delhi University. It was further submitted that a notice had been received by her husband from Delhi University to vacate the premises at 10 Cavalry Lines, Delhi failing which penal rent at 10 times the standard rent will be charged from him. The landlady’s husband, therefore, vacated the premises allotted by Delhi University and took first and second floor of house no. 43, Vaishali from one professor G.S.Saharia at a monthly rentofRs.2000.00 . It was further stated that the landlady was a house-wife and her husband having now retired they were unable to pay Rs. 2000.00 per month as rent.
(4) Similar averments were made by the landlady in all the three eviction petitions. The three tenants filed separate written statements however except one or two additional defenses, a similar defense was put up regarding bona fide need of the landlady.
(5) Thus for the sake of convenience and brevity I will deal with the question of bona fide need of the landlady first in respect of all the three eviction petitions and thereafter deal with the individual pleas of three tenants.
(6) The three premises in respect of which eviction is sought is as follows: The tenanted premises in possession of the tenant Shri Sita Ram (C.R. No. 807/89) is three rooms, kitchen and W.C. on the first floor and garage on the ground floor; The tenanted premises in possession of Shri Kishan Lal (Civil Revision no. 912/89) is two rooms, one kitchen, one bath and Wc on the ground floor; and The tenanted premises in possession of Shri Trilok Nath Cc R 806/89) is three rooms on the first floor with kitchen and toilet.
(7) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the landlady that the family of the landlady consists of herself, her husband, one married son daughter in law, grand child, another grown up unmarried son aged about “0 years, mother-in-law i.e. mother of her husband, and servant.
(8) Learned counsel for the tenants however submitted That the sons of the landlady are economically independent and thus it cannot be said that they are dependent on the landlady for their residence. It was further submitted that the mother-in-law i.e. mother of the husband is not a member of the family of the landlady. Learned counsel submitted that the husband of the landlady ha another brother living in Delhi and the mother-in-law lives with the other brother.
(9) The Controller after considering the evidence on record and the Jaw on the point came to the conclusion that the sons of the landlady are dependent on her for their residence. The Controller however held that the mother-in-law is not a member of the family of the landlady dependent on the landlady for her residence.
(10) On perusal of the evidence on record I find that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the sons of the landlady though are employment and major are dependent on the landlady for their residence. There is evidence to thaw that even in the tenanted accommodation at Vaishali taken by the husband of the landlady, the two sons are living in joint mess with the parents. The Controller has rightly observed that in our society it is still common to have extended families and the sons continue to live with the patents even after they get married. As regards the need for accommodating the mother-in-law, I find that the Controller has not appreciated the position in its proper perspective. It is not unbelievable that the husband’s mother would live with the landlady even though the house is not owned by the husband and is owned by the landlady. The Controller came to the conclusion that the mother-in-law does not live with the landlady because ration Card and electoral roll were not produced and also because the brother of the husband also lives in Delhi. On perusal of the evidence I find that the husband of the landlady who held a power of attorney on behalf of the landlady has stated on oath that his mother lives with him, though his other brother is in Delhi. There is no contrary evidence on record. The mother-in-law of the landlady is 85 years old. The husband of the landlady has made a categorical statement that even in the premises at Vaishali, the mother lives with the rest of the family. No .v assuming for the sake of argument that electoral roll and ration card were not produced, even then when other evidence is on record it cannot be said that because of the non-production of the documents like ration card and electoral roll, adverse inference can be drawn against landlady. To that extent, the finding of the Controller is erroneous.
(11) Now if the family of the landlady consists of the above-mentioned members, then she would require one room for herself and her husband, one room for her married son and daughter-in-law, one room for the grand child, one room for the unmarried son, one room for the mother in law, apart from drawing, dining and kitchen i.e. 7 rooms. The plan filed by the landlady on record shows that the rooms are very small and since it is an old fashioned house clear demarcation for drawing room. dining room etc. is not in the plan. Thus, from the existing rooms, itself the landlady will have to use for dining and drawing room. The premises occupied by the three tenants in question consists of two 3 rooms apartments on the first floor and one 2 rooms’ appartment on the ground floor i.e. 8 rooms in all. Thus, the whole of the accommodation in possession of these three tenants would clearly be required by the landlady for accommodating her whole family. The landlady has claimed one room for accommodating her servant. Admittedly, there is no separate servant quarter. It is possible that the landlady can accommodate the servant by adjusting the rooms in such a way that some portion is converted into drawing room, dining room and a small room is set apart for the servant. The mother-in-law of the landlady is 85 years old and aged. It is submitted that she is not in a position to climb. Thus, once the ground floor is available to the landlady, she can also accommodate her mother-in-law.
(12) Learned counsel for the tenants also contended that the landlady is not required to vacate the tenanted premises at Vaishali because the landlord of that house is not pressing her husband to vacate.
(13) Leaned counsel for the landlady however submitted that after the retirement of the husband of the landlady, the means available to the family have considerably reduced and they are not in a position to pay Rs. 2000.00 per month as rent.
(14) I do not think it is open to the tenant to raise this plea that the accommodation available with the landlady now is sufficient or that because the landlord of that house not pressing for eviction, the landlady cannot ask for premises in occupation of the preset tenants. Admittedly, the husband of the the landlady took the premises at Vaishali on rent after filing the eviction petitions. Since he was required to vacate the premises given by the Delhi University after his retirement, he had no option but to take the premises on rent eicewhere. If the landlady desires to stay in her own house and not in tenanted accomodation, such a desire cannot be said to be unreasonable. In fact, it is the hope of every house owner that on retirement or whenever in need, be would occupy the premises owned by him for his occupation. Thus, in my view the fact that landlord of that house is not pressing for vacating the tenanted accommodation or whether the landlady can afford to pay that rent is absolutely irrelevant.
(15) It was next contended that the landlady constructed a second floor and let it out from time to time during the pendency of the eviction petitions. It was contended that there are two flats on the second floor, one flat was initially .let out to one Mr. M.P. Gupta but on his vacating the flat it was re-let to one Mr. Pandey in the year 1977 and thereafter to one Mr. Wati in the year 1985. The other portion on the second floor was occupied by one Mr. Goenka which portion, according to the tenants, was also vacated by Mr. Goenka and re-let by the landlady.
(16) The case of the landlady is that she let out the premises on the second floor at a time when the premises were not required by her for her use because hes husband was allotted accommodation that the second floor accommodation is not convenient. Learned counsel submitted that both, the landlady and her husband are aged and retired persons and they cannot climb two floors. Further there is no continuity between the ground floor and second floor.
(17) I have gone through the evidence produced in this regard and I find that the husband of the landlady has categorically stated that the second floor was constructed in the year 1961 and it was let out to various tenants because the second floor premises were not required while the accommodation allotted by the Delhi University was available to them for their use at that time. The husband of the landlady has made a categorical statement that no portion of the second floor is lying vacant. This statement was recorded in the year 1982, None of the tenants have produced any evidence to show that after 1982, any portion of the second floor was let out. Thus, the letting of the second floor premises cannot affect the case of the landlady in any manner. Rather, there is evidence to show that both Mr. Goenka and Mr. Pandey are in occupation of the two flats on the second floor even now.
(18) The next plea taken was that a portion on the ground floor which was originally occupied by one Mr. Madan Lal was available to the landlady for her use. It is alleged that Mr. Madan Lal who was a tenant on the ground floor has left and given the possession of the premises, to the landlady. According to the tenants, Mr. Madan Lal vacated the premises and shifted to Ashok Vihar and gave the premises to someone else and the landlady did not object. Great emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the tenants on the fact that the landlady was aware that Mr. Madan Lal had- vacated the premises and it was submitted that Mr. Madan Lal had vacated the premises even before the eviction petitions were filed. Learned counsel submitted that the landlady accepted that Mr. Madan Lal does not stay in the premises on the ground floor .but one Mrs. Nirula is staying there, only after this Court directed the landlady to go and see at the premises who was staying in Madan Lal’s portion. Great emphasis was laid on the electoral rolls to show that Mr. Madan Lal was not staying on the ground floor of the premises. Thus, the landlady has lost her right to get the tenants evicted from other portions and her bona fides are doubtful. It was however submitted by the learned counsel for the landlady that the landlady does not stay in the building in question and, therefore, it was not possible for her to know who is staying in the premises let out to Mr. Madan Lal Learned counsel for the landlady submitted that even if Mr. Madan Lal had shifted to other premises in Ashok Vihar, the possession of the premises was not handed over by Mr. Madan Lal to the landlady. Thus, unless possession was handed over to the landlady, it could not be said that the ground floor premises were available to her. I find that the husband of the landlady has specifically stated in his evidence that the ground floor premises are still occupied by Mr. Madan Lal. From the evidence I find that there is nothing to show that Mr. Madan Lal handed over possession of the premises to the landlady at any time even though Mr. Madan Lal may have shifted to Ashok Vihar. Now undoubtedly, it can be said that the portion which was let out to Mr. Madan Lal was available only if the landlady had obtained possession from Mr. Madan Lal. The fact that the landlady is entitled to get back possession from Mr. Madan because he has constructed some other house in Ashok Vihar is not enough. Even though the landlady has now filed an affidavit that one Mrs. Nirula is staying there, it cannot be said that the portion of the ground floor is available to her for her residence. That it will eventually be available, if the landlady succeeds in getting possession of that flat cannot disentitle of these tenants on the basis that Madan Lal’s premises are available.
(19) Thus, in my view, the landlady has clearly established her bonafide need of the premises in the possession of all the three tenants in the three revision petitions,
(20) Now coming to the other defenses set up by the tenants. C.R. 807189
(21) It was contended that the letting purpose was composite. Admittedly, there is no written lease deed. Therefore, as observed by the Controller, the purpose of letting has to be inferred from the nature of premises, its design, location, dominant use etc. It is the case of the tenant that Shri Chotey Lal was arising part of the premises in question for his business of tailoring. The Controller has observed the tenant Shri Sita Ram is a Teacher in a government school and he cannot carry out any private work nor does he do so. Shri Chotey Lal is a tailor by profession. However he has admitted in his examination that he has got a tailoring shop opposite Birla Mill since 1956-57 and he has a separate business establishment there. There is no evidence produced by the tenant to show that Shri Chotey Lal carries on the tailoring business from the premises :n dispute. The tenant has not produced a single customer of Shri Chotey Lal nor any receipt issued by Shri Chotey Lal to any customer or any employee of Shri Chotey Lal to prove that Chotey Lal carries on the business of tailoring from the demised premises. Thus, there being no evidence to show that the premises were let out for composite purpose, I see no error in the finding of the Controller that the letting purpose Was purely residential.
(22) It was next contended that Chotey Lal was also a tenant in the premises and since no eviction petition was filed against Chotey Lal, the eviction order is bad. Admittedly, Chotey Lal had taken a three room set premises on the first floor on rent from the landlady at the initial stage. However, subsequently one garage was also let out by the landlady to Sita Ram.
(23) It is the case of the landlady that when the garage was taken on rent, Chotey Lal surrendered his tenancy in favor of his own son and thereafter Sita Ram became a tenant in respect of the three rooms on the first floor as well as the garage.
(24) There is evidence on record to show that after July, 1969, rent was being paid by Sita Ram in respect of the premises on the first floor as well as the garage and a consolidated receipt was issued in the name of Sita Ram. Chotey Lal did not object to the receipt being issued in the name of Sita Ram till date. Thus, it is obvious that Chotey Lal had surrendered his tenancy in favor of his son Sita Ram and Sita Ram was accepted as a tenant by the landlady. There is nothing on record to show that Chotey Lal disputed Sita Ram’s tenancy. Both, Chotey Lal and Sita Ram had proceeded all-through on the basis that after 1969 Sita Ram was the tenant in respect of the three rooms on the first floor as well as the garage. Thus, there is no merit in the contention raised by the tenant-Sita Ram that the petition is had for non-joinder of parties. C.R. 806189
(25) Tirlok Nath Kundra-tenant in this case also has raised the objection regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the premises were let out for residential cum commercial purpose.
(26) On perusal of the evidence I find that there is nothing the indicate that Trilok Nath Kundra carried out any commercial activities from the tenanted premises. In fact, Trilok Nath Kundra has admitted that his business is run from the premises in Kashmeri Gate, Delhi. The Controller, to my mind has rightly come to the conclusion that the premises were let out only for residential purpose. C.R. 912189
(27) The tenant-Kisban Lal also claims that the premises were let both for residential as well as commercial purposes. The Controller has given a positive finding that the premises were let out only for residential purpose.
(28) I have gone through the evidence on record. I find that the tenant- Kishan Lal who claims to be a Scribe has himself in his evidence stated that he took a shop in Kmari Bazar for doing his business immediately after partition in 1947. Kishan Lal has not produced any evidence to prove that he carries on his business even from his residence. Kishan Lal has only two rooms in his occupation and his family consists of four persons. It is thus difficult to believe that he would be carrying on business from the demised premises, particularly when he has got other business premises in Kinari Bazar. Excepting one witness who stated that he had got some Rent Note executed from Kishan Lal and for that purpose he had visited the demised premises, there is no other evidence produced to show that the regular business of Kisban Lal was being run from the demised premises. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it is difficult to accept the contention that the premises were let also for commercial purpose. The Controller has, therefore, rightly held that the premises were let out only for residential purpose.
(29) Thus, the landlady having proved that the premises in occupation of the three tenants are needed by her for her own occupation and for occupation of her family members dependent upon her and also that all the three premises were let out to the three tenants only for residential purpose in my view, the landlady is entitled to get eviction of all the three tenants.
(30) In the circumstance?. Civil Revision Nos. 806 and 807 of 1989 are dismissed. Civil Revision No. 912 of 1989 is allowed. An eviction order is passed against the tenant-Kishan Lal in respect of the premises occupied by him. However, the tenant-Kishan Lal is granted six months time to vacate the premises. No costs.