Once the families of Jagdish Kishore and Ram Kishore are considered as included in the expression “himself”, the accommodation with the petitioner is wholly insufficient. There are as many as five grand children who are required to be married. I am informed that out of these five, one has already been married in June this year. If I excluded from consideration Maheshwari even then the accommodation remains insufficient for such a large family.
(1982) 22 DLT 381 : (1983) 1 RCJ 352 : (1982) 2 RCJ 352 : (1982) 2 RCR(Rent) 569 : (1982) 2 RentLR 278
DELHI HIGH COURT
( Before : Yogeshwar Dayal, J )
GHANDU LAL GUPTA — Appellant
SRI RAM NAGAR — Respondent
Civil Revision Appeal No. 363 of 1980
Decided on : 04-08-1982
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section — 14(1), 14(1)(e) — Ejectment of tenant
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.
(1) This revision petition is directed against the order of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 15th July, 1977 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for ejectment of the respondent.
(2) The Petition itself was filed by the petitioner for ejectment of the respondent inter alias on the allegations that the petitioner is the owner of the premises ; the premises had been let out to the respondent for residential purposes only and that the petitioner requires the premises bona fide for his residence and the residence of his family members dependent upon him. It was alleged in the petition that the family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife, three sons, six daughters, three daughter-in-laws, five grand-daughters, six grand-sons. It was also stated that all the six daughters are married and they often visit with their husbands and stay with the petitioner, Along with their children for several days. Two of the grand-sons were stated to be 25 and 21 years and they were alleged to be married very soon. It was further stated that two grand-daughters of the petitioner are students of Higher Secondary. It was also stated that the petitioner has only five rooms, two verandahs, one store, two kitchens, one Miani and the present residential ac
(3) The plea of the respondent-tenant was that the petitioner is not the owner ; that the premises were not let for residential purposes and were let both for residential cum-commercial purpose. It was denied that the premises are required bona fide by the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner has got sufficient accommodation in the building, It was also stated that the petitioner owns a residential house in Multan Nagar, Delhi, which is at a distance of about 7 kilometer from Shakti Nagar. It was alleged that the said house compromises of three big rooms, one store, kitchen and tin shed and the petitioner let out one room for nonresidential purposes and the remaining portion is lying vacant. It was also alleged that Ram Kishore, son of the petitioner, owns a house at Faridabad and both the aforesaid houses are available with the petitioner. It was also pleaded that one of the sons of Ram Kishore, Anil Kumar is putting up permanently at Palwal.
(4) In the replication the petitioner reiterated his ownership as well as the letting purpose being residential. Regarding the house at Multan Nagar it was stated that it is not suitable because it is far away from the present accommodation. It was further stated that the petitioner and his sons with their respective families arc residing in the house in suit from the very beginning and the petitioner cannot afford nor would like any of his sons to go such a distance place to accommodate the respondent specially in his old age. It was also stated that the petitioner needs the company of his sons and their children to look after him and his business which is being run at Shakti Nagar. It was denied that Shri Anil Kumar s/o Ram Kishore is staying at Palwal or that Shri Ram Kishore owns any house in Faridabad. It was stated that the petitioner and his sons have a joint Hindu Family, though on account of large family members they have three kitchens.
(5) The learned trial Court found that the petitioner was the owner and the premises were let for residential purposes only. The learned trial Court further found that the petitioner has got three major sons namely Shri Ram Kishore, Shri Jagdish Kishore and Shri Naval Kishore. The learned trial Court also found that Nawal Kisliore is having common kitchen with his father while Rain Kishore and Jagdish Kishore are having separate kitchen though living in the same premises. The learned trial Court also found that the house at Multan Nagar is not suitable for the petitioner.
(6) The learned Additional Rent Controller in view of the finding that two of the sons of the petitioner have separate kitchens excluded their need from consideration. The learned trial Court also found that the accommodation in possession of the petitioner is more than sufficient for himself and the third son i.e. Nawal Kishore and his family and accordingly dismissed the application for eviction.
(7) It will be noticed that the family of Jagdish Kishore consists of himself, his wife and four children three sons and one married daughter. The sons are aged about 23 years, 21 years and 19 years. The family of the second son Ram Kishore consists of himself, his wife and five children. Three sons are of marriageable age i.e. 28 years, 25 years and 21 years. He has two daughters aged 23 years and 19 years.
(8) It will thus be noticed that in the disputed premises four couples are staying, namely; petitioner Sh. Chandhu Lal Gupta ; three sons and their wives. There are as many as 12 grand children. Out of 12 grand children nine are majors. The accommodation with the petitioner on the ground floor consists of three rooms of the sizes: 13.9 X 13.10″ 8.6’Xl2′ and 8.6′ X 12′. Besides these three rooms there arc four small room which are described as stores. Two of the stores are of the sizes 7′ X6.6′ each and one store is of the size 7′ X 6′. Besides the other room called store is of the size 8 3′ X 7.9′. There is also a tin-shed of the size 10.7″ on the ground floor. Besides there is a W.C , a bath room and the kitchen on the ground floor. The accommodation on the first floor with the petitioner is of three rooms. Two rooms being of the sizes of 12.9′ X 9.3′ each and one room of the size of 14’X 7′. Besides there is a verandah on the ground floor as well as on the first floor.
(9) The case of the landlord-petitioner was that he and his son Nawal Kishore are occupying the accommodation on the ground floor whereas two other sons Ram Kishore and Jagdish Kishore are occupying two of the rooms on the first floor (one room each) and the third room measuring 12.9’X9.3′ is in occupation of one Shri Maheshwari, who is a friend of his son and is staying there without paying any rent.
(10) As I had noticed earlier the learned Additional Rent Controller took the view that because two sons Ram Kishore and Jagdish Kishore are having separate kitchens from the father, Therefore, the need of these members cannot be considered as they are independent of his father and not dependent on him.
(11) It will be noticed that the premises from which the eviction is sought consists of only one room measuring 13.10″ X 13.9′ and a kitchen measuring 7′ X 6′. There is also another room measuring 6.41″ X 7′. The tenant is also having a small tin-shed on the first floor.
(12) It will be noticed that if the need of Jagdish Kishore and Ram Kishore has to be considered then the accommodation with the landlord is wholly insufficient.
(13) The point thus which arises in this petition is whether the need of these two sons and their families should be considered or not.
(14) Clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 reads as under:-
“14.(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favor of the landlord against a tenant : Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:- (e) that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.”
(15) Under this clause the landlord can apply for ejectment of tenant for residence for himself or for any member dependent on him. The question is what is the meaning of word “himself”. It has been held in a catena of authorities that the term “himself” does not mean the landlord alone. “Himself” includes all his members of the family living with him normally. (Reference may be made to the decision of Sachar, J. in the matter reported as J.L. Mehta Vs. Hira Devi, , and to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter reported as AIR 1981 Delhi 151 : Govind Dass and others v. Kuldip Singh. In J.L Mehta v. Hira Devi (supra) Sachar, J .has referred to numerous other cases in which this view was taken).
(16) It is not denied that from the very beginning two other sons namely Jagdish Kishore and Ram Kishore have been living in this very house. As the family multiplied, instead of one kitchen there became three kitchens. Very often it becomes very difficult for one house-wife to cook meals for three families. It is not very easy to engage servant. It is very often that one family has more than one kitchen for the sake of convenience. The sons do not cease to be the part of the family merely because they are having separate kitchens in the same building. Once the families of Jagdish Kishore and Ram Kishore are considered as included in the expression “himself”, the accommodation with the petitioner is wholly insufficient. There are as many as five grand children who are required to be married. I am informed that out of these five, one has already been married in June this year. If I excluded from consideration Maheshwari even then the accommodation remains insufficient for such a large family.
(17) The result is that the order of learned Additional Rent Controller dated 15th July, 1977 is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner for ejectment of the respondent is accepted and an order for eviction is passed against the respondent on the grounds contained in clause (e) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.
(18) The respondent is, however, allowed six months time to vacate the premises.
J.L. Mehta Vs. Hira Devi, (1970) 6 DLT 484 : (1971) RLR 70
Counsel for Appearing Parties
Categories: Rent Control