Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.— Petitioner/landlord is aggrieved by an order dated 18th August 2006 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller whereby his eviction under Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) on the ground of bona fide requirement was dismissed.
2. The respondent herein is the tenant in respect of one bedroom, one drawing room, kitchen WC, independent levatory, bathroom with front courtyard and back verandah on the ground floor of the property bearing number F-26, West Nizamuddin, New Delhi on a month rental of Rs. 500/- since 1973. The petitioner submitted that respondent was now not living in the premises and he was living in Ludhiana and only occasionally used to visit the premises and stay there, otherwise the premises was being kept locked by him. About his bona fide requirements, it was submitted that the accommodation at first floor was with the petitioner. The accommodation consisted of two bedrooms, one store room, one kitchen, bath and latrine. While one bedroom was being used by the petitioner and his wife, the other room was being used as a drawing room. The store room was being used for keeping articles. The wife of the petitioner was a pious lady and she had no pooja room. The sister of the petitioner was living with the petitioner and she had no room or kitchen for her proper living. The petitioner was facing great inconvenience and difficulty v/hen his son and daughter-in-law and grand children living abroad visit India as there was no proper accommodation for their stay in the premises and at least one room was required for them for their stay whenever they visit India. Likewise, petitioner's married daughter residing in UK also used to visit the petitioner and his wife every now and then along with her husband and children and on account of paucity of accommodation, they also cannot stay with them and they have to stay outside. The petitioner required the ground floor premises in occupation of the of the tenant (respondent herein) for his and his family's bona fide requirement.
3. The tenant took objection about the ownership of the petitioner and relationship of landlord and tenant as well as about the bona fide requirement. However, learned ARC found that the petitioner was the owner of the premises and the dispute raised by the respondent about the ownership was not a genuine dispute. The relationship of landlord and tenant was also proved. However, learned ARC observed that the sister of the petitioner had been living independently on the ground floor in one room and this portion was sufficient to meet her requirements and the petitioner and his wife who were living on the first floor in two rooms had sufficient accommodation to meet their requirements as they can occupy one room and one room can be used for the guests as and when guests come. The same room can be used as a drawing room by the petitioner. Thus in view of learned ARC, the petitioner failed to prove his bona fide requirement and he dismissed the eviction petition of the petitioner (landlord).
4. The order of the learned ARC has been challenged on the ground that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and also failed to consider the bona fide requirement of the petitioner qua ailments of the petitioner. The petitioner was suffering from glaucoma in his eyes and had poor visibility and was having high blood pressure. The petitioner's wife was also suffering stomach trouble and had been operated twice. The petitioner and his wife both were in old age and used to remain sick and they required an accommodation on the ground floor. The petitioner's sister was living in one room on the ground floor and there was no other portion on the ground floor which could be used by the petitioner's sister as there was only one latrine and bathroom on the first floor. The sister of the petitioner had fallen from her bed on 21st February 2004 and was operated upon on 23rd February 2004. Her medical record was proved before the trial court but the same had been ignored. The store room on the ground floor where she was living was insufficient for her as it was without toilet etc. The petitioner and his wife, on account of old age, were finding it difficult to use the staircase frequently. The sister of the petitioner, living on the ground floor, without a toilet, was also old aged and ailing and had to use the staircase time and again for using toilet. The house was having an old design staircase of sharp curves and being an old aged lady it was difficult for her to climb to the first floor. The trial court ignored all this evidence.
5. A perusal of the testimony of the respondent would show that the respondent was not living in the premises and he was running a hosiery industry in Ludhiana in the name of Swadeshi Textiles Limited. He had purchased a farm house for himself and his family members in South City Ludhiana and his farm house was known as ‘Kholsa Farm’. His testimony shows that his family was permanently settled in Ludhiana. He claimed that he keeps on visiting Delhi as his 15 years old son was sick and he had to bring him for regular check up at city hospital and during this stay, the premises was being used. During his testimony, in order to prove his occasional stay, he sought time to produce documents to show that he was having gas connection etc, but despite seeking adjournment from the trial court, he failed to produce any document to show that there was any gas connection or any other facility at the premises and he failed to produce any document of his frequent visits. It was thus clearly proved that the premises in question was just being kept locked and was being used only occasionally as was stated by the landlord in his petition. Although the landlord filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1) (e) of DRC Act for his bona fide necessity and had categorically stated in the petition that the premises was being kept locked and was only occasionally used, Section 14(1) (h) of DRC Act provides that where a tenant before or after commencement of the Act has acquired the vacant possession of a residence or has been allotted a residence, the landlord gets a right to get his premises vacated. I consider that in this case, the learned ARC should have ordered for eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1) (h) although this section was not specifically mentioned by the petitioner in the eviction petition. The ingredients stated in the eviction petition proved that the tenant had acquired an alternate accommodation.
6. This case is a glaring example as to how the tenant, who is an industrialist, though does not need the premises and was living with his family in a farm house kept the possession of tenanted premises by keeping it locked just to deprive the landlord/owner of the use of the premises. He kept the premises under his lock and key because he has only to pay Rs. 500/- per month as rental, which is no amount for an industrialist like him and by paying Rs. 500 per month he can keep the landlord/owner deprived of the premises. The Rent Control Act was enacted by the Legislature as a social piece of legislation in order to protect the interests of the tenants. This enactment was considered necessary in view of the paucity of accommodation in a city like Delhi. The purpose of the Act was not to give a tool in the hands of tenants to cause sufferance to the landlords. The Supreme Court in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra 1998 (2) SCC (1) observed that law ought not to be unjust to one and give a disproportionate benefit of protection to another section of the society. When there is shortage of accommodation, it is desirable and necessary that some protection should be given to the tenant in order to ensure that they are not exploited but at the same time such a law has to be reviewed periodically so as to ensure that disproportionate larger benefits than the one which were intended, is not given to the tenants.
7. The intent and purpose of Rent Control Legislation was to see that the because of shortage of accommodation in a city like Delhi, the tenants are not made to shuttle from one house to other. The purpose was not to give a tool in the hands of tenants to exploit the landlords. That is why, the legislation categorically provided under Section 14(1) (h) that if the tenant acquires the residential accommodation, the landlord has a ground for his eviction. It is settled law that merely non mentioning of the provisions of law, is not a fatal defect and the Court can take note of correct provision of law and give relief. Despite the fact that the landlord had not mentioned provisions of Section 14(1) (h), I consider that it was a fit case where learned ARC should have given benefit of Section 14(1) (h) to the landlord and should have ordered eviction because the tenant had acquired a farm house in Ludhiana for his own and his family's requirements and had been keeping the premises in question under his lock and key just for his visits to Delhi. He being an industrialist could always stay in a hotel.
8. I find that the learned ARC did not consider the evidence of the landlord regarding bona fide requirement also and did not adhere to law laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court regarding bona fide requirement. It is now well settled law that the tenant or the Court cannot impose their own standards and cannot compel the landlord that he should keep on living in the premises in his occupation just because he was used to live in it as has already been living in that premises. The learned ARC in this case has not taken into account the old age of the landlord and his wife, their ailments and the difficulties being faced by them in climbing stairs. Learned ARC has also not considered the requirement of a guestroom for visits of their son and daughter with their family. The petitioner's (landlord) stand that his son and family visited and stayed with him has been totally ignored. The petitioner's requirement of Pooja room has also been totally ignored. This Court has laid down in various decisions that requirements of a Pooja Room and a guest room for visiting married daughters and sons of the landlord were to be considered as a bona fide requirement. The learned ARC just ignored all this despite there being evidence led in this regard by the landlord. I consider that the learned ARC has committed grave error by ignoring the material evidence of the landlord.
9. The requirement of landlord of a Pooja Room and a guest room and the requirement of the sister of the landlord who is living on the ground floor and the requirement of his wife, who is an old lady, to live on the ground floor are all bona fide requirements. I consider that he and his ailing wife have a right to live at the ground floor when they find it difficult to climb the stairs, more so when the tenant is keeping the premises locked only as a luxury and is having his own farm house to live in Ludhiana where he had already shifted and living with his family and running an industry.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances and settled legal position, the petition is allowed. The eviction petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and an eviction order is passed in favour of the landlord/petitioner and against the tenant/respondent. The respondent is directed to vacate the premises within a period of 30 days from today.
Section 14(1) (h)