Mahmood Ali Khan, J.:—
Held : In the instant case it has been seen that respondent No. 2, is the owner and landlord of the premises in occupation of the petitioner. He and his family is residing in a portion of Vasant Vihar house which is owned by his father, respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is living there with the leave of his father, respondent No. 1. He is living thereon leave and licence basis and cannot be compelled to continue to live there if his father wanted him to quit. There is neither allegation nor is there any proof that the accommodation on the first floor and the barsati floor which is presently in occupation of respondent No. 2 is still on rent with the BPCL. On the contrary, the allegation of the petitioner is that the transaction of lease between respondent No. 1 and the BPCL was a camouflage. The respondents have given a cogent and plausible explanation for respondent No. 2 deciding to shift to his own house in Greater Kailash house. It has come in their statement as PW1 and PW2 respectively that they are not joint in living and that the family of respondent No. 1 and the family of respondent No. 2 are separate in living since 1960 when the respondent No. 2 was married. It has further come in evidence that respondent No. 1 had two wives, one of whom was living with him on the ground floor and the other, who was the mother of respondent No. 2, was living with respondent No. 2 on the first floor. Mother of respondent No. 2 has died during the pendency of this petition. May be one of the reasons for which respon dent No. 1 wanted respondent No. 2 to shift to Greater Kailash house i.e on ac count of frictions and strains between the mother of respondent No. 2, the other wife of respondent No. 1, or the two families because of this is not there. With the death of the mother of respondent No. 2 the cause of that irritation may not survive any more. But it was not the only ground on which respondent No. 2 wanted his own house to be vacated by the petitioner.
Respondent No. 1 is an old man of 91 years. Respondent No. 2 is also 63 years old and is a retired officer of the BPCL. The accommodation in Vasant Vihar house is no doubt spacious and can accommodate the families of Respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 but the requirement of the suit premises by respondent No. 2 is not on account of shortage or paucity of accommodation there. The reason is that respondent No. 1 does not have a regular income by way of pension and, therefore, he wanted to increase his income by letting out the accommodation in Vasant Vihar house which at the current rate of interest in the locality would fetch between Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1.00/- lacs p.m, according to the respondents. It would fetch substantial sum as rent which fact cannot be denied by the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 being a heart and cancer patient must be providing expensive treatment to himself for this disease. Respondent No. 2 also may desire to pass his remaining days of life in his own house.
Examining the facts and evidence in the light of the law enunciated by the Apex Court cited in the foregoing paragraphs there is no escape from holding that the respondent No. 2 required the suit premises bonafidely and he is not in possession of a reasonably suitable residential accommodation. All the necessary ingredients of clause (e) have been established by the respondents.
The learned Additional Rent Controller had considered oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties and his view cannot be said to be not supported by evidence or it is not reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the ease. It cannot be said to be not in accordance with law. The jurisdiction of this Court under sub-section (8) of Section 25B of the Act is not very wide as has been observed in the foregoing paragraphs. The court can reappreciate the evidence only for limited purpose of finding whether the order of Rent Controller is in accordance with law. The court cannot reverse the view of the Rent Controller upon reap-preciation of evidence for the reasons that another view is possible on this evidence. It cannot be stated that the view of the learned Additional Rent Controller is perverse or without any evidence and not in accordance with law.
Petition dismissed.
Comments