CHHOTTEY LAL GUPTA Vs. CHARAN SINGH GUPTA
LAWS(DLH)-1983-8-8
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on August 03,1983

CHHOTTEY LAL GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
CHARAN SINGH GUPTA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HAZARA SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SARIA MITTAL VS. K C JAM [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.L.Jain, J. - (1.)The family of the respondent landlord Charan SinghGupta consists of himself, two sons, their wives, three grand-children ofthe age of 11,9 and 6 and four married daughters. The accommodationin his possession is three living rooms, one store, one kitchen on the first floor, one barsati on the second floor, two duchattis on 6' height, and abasement store. A shop on the ground floor, one store, one more duchattiare there, but they are being used for tailoring work done by his son andhis workmen. There is one garage on the ground floor which is mortgagedwith one Sharbati Jain. The landlord filed an eviction application againsthis tenant Chhottey Lal Gupta. The tenant contended that the landlordis not the owner of the premises. He also contended that the accommodationin possession of the landlord is sufficient for his requirements. The Addl.Controller by his order dated 22-11-1932 directed eviction under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Hence, this revision.
(2.)It appears that house No. 8454 was built on two plots 14 and 15.The property built on plot No. 14 was sold to Rama Mala Devi. Thelandlord's father bequeathed in his favour the property built on plot No.15, Model Basti. The landlord is thus the sole owner of plot No. 15. Thelearned Additional Controller was of the view that the landlord required fourbed rooms, besides one guest room for his daughters and one drawing-cum-dining room. One dutachhatti and one store were already used for business.Barsati and the basement cannot be used as living rooms. He held that hisrequirement of the disputed premises is genuine. It was brought to mynotice that the tenant who is a nephew of the landlord is not living in thedisputed premises and as a matter of fact is living with his family inhouse No. T-326, Ahata Kidara, Delhi, taken in the name of his wife.I appointed a local commissioner and he reported that the disputed premiseswere locked. There were no articles in the kitchen. There were somearticles of furniture in the room, but it was full of webs and dust. Thelocal commissioner also inspected house No. T-326, Ahata Kidara, but thestaircase of the house was found locked and the inspection of the premisescould not be undertaken. The inevitable conclusion is that the tenant doesnot at all need the premises in question. He has already shifted to gomeother premises. They have been taken in the name of his wife and hiswhole family lives there. He has simply locked the premises in dispute,probably because they are on meagre rent. The statutory protection isnot meant for such cases. It is not incorrect that for a reasonably comfortable living the accommodation at present with the landlord is notsufficient. According to Shri Shyam Bihari Singh v. Smt. Sushila Devi, XXI(1982) D.L.T. 35 and Sarla Mittal v. K.C. Jain, XXI (1982) D.L.T. 334, thelandlord is entitled to live comfortably in his own house. Findings of factarrived at by the Controller even if wrong, cannot be easily interferedwith. The members of the family of landlord cannot certainly be askedto live in dutachattis which are only 6 high which are in fact being usedas stores nor can he be asked to satisfy himself with barsati and basement.He is also entitled to have a separate dining and sitting room. There isnothing in the findings of fact arrived at by the Controller below whichcan be said to be not in accordance with law.
(3.)I, therefore, find no force in this revision and dismiss the samewith costs.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.