- (1.) This is an appeal by the petitioner-landlord, Lala Hari Shankar under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is directed against the judgment and order passed on the 23rd November, 1973 by Shri Gian Chand Jain, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi.
(2.) The dispute pertains to a portion of the ground floor of property No. 4198, Gali Daroga Kanhya Lal, Jogiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi, consisting of a room and a Kotha. The tenant, Dhan Raj Sharma is in occupation on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- and the premises are residential. On 17th December, 1969, the landlord filed a petition for the eviction of the tenant from the above mentioned premises on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. The Rent Controller, Delhi Shri Jaspal Singh by his judgment and order dated 11th December, 1972 held that the family of the petitioner, staying with him, consisted of the petitioner, his wife and his only child i.e. his married daughter along with her husband and five children. He also held that the petitioner is a man of status and the accommodation in his possession was not sufficient to meet his requirements. On the question of the accommodation in his possession, there was some dispute as to whether the accommodation on the second floor available with the petitioner consisted of rooms or Barsaties. The Rent Controller assumed, against the petitioner that the accommodation on the second floor consisted of rooms and took this factor into consideration, while assessing the accommodation, though he felt that the petitioner's evidence that it consisted of Barsaties was convincing. Despite this fact he held that the accommodation was insufficient and the need of the petitioner bonafide. He relied on the site plan filed by the tenant, Exhibit R.W.5/1. He also held that there was no oblique motive, such as intention of raising the rent, and as such allowed the petition under Section 14(i)(e) of the Act with costs and ordered the tenant to deliver the premises in dispute to the petitioner. He, however, stayed the execution for six months.
(3.) The tenant being aggrieved appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal under Section 38 of the Act. The Rent Control Tribunal came to the conclusion that at least from 1968 onwards the landlord's daughter and her husband and five children had been living with the landlord. He also observed that since the landlord had only one daughter, there was nothing unusual in this situation and, therefore, the accommodation was required for the landlord, his wife, daughter, son-in-law and their five children, the eldest child being 11 years at that time. He did not find that the landlord had any oblique motive for filing the petition. He, however, held that the accommodation with the landlord was quite reasonable. In the result he accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the application of the landlord. He also granted costs of Rs. 50/- to the tenant.;