MAN MOHAN MEHRA Vs. J S BUTALIA
LAWS(DLH)-1983-7-23
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on July 04,1983

MAN MOHAN MEHRA Appellant
VERSUS
J.S.BUTALIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BATTOO MAL VS. RAMESHWAR NATH [OBSERVED]



Cited Judgements :-

KANWAL NARAIN VS. L F TELLIS [LAWS(DLH)-1983-9-1] [CITED]
HARI BHAGWAN SHARMA VS. BADRI BHAGATJHANDEWALAN TEMPLE SOCIETY [LAWS(DLH)-1984-2-53] [REFERRED]
S P MALIK VS. PARPATI BAI HARYANVI [LAWS(DLH)-1985-5-20] [REFERRED]
S K GAMBHIR VS. LT GEN T R PAHWA DECD [LAWS(DLH)-1986-2-47] [REFERRED TO]
RUP CHAND VS. SHANTI DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-1987-4-21] [REFERRED 15. 1980 (2) RCJ 624.]
PRABHU CHAUDHARY VS. SHRI HIRA LAL KAPOOR [LAWS(DLH)-1985-12-37] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.L.Jain, J. - (1.)Sh. J.S. Butalia constructed a house in 1975 in Gulmohar Park, while residing in a rented premises in Jagpura He and his wife both had obtained loans and had to let out the premises to repay the loan. His landlord however, filed an eviction application in 1976 in which eviction order was passed in 1978 and an undertaking to vacate was given by Sh.Butalia in the appeal. He vacated the Jangpura house in 197) in compliance with the undertaking to the court and occupied the first iloor of his owa house which has two bed rooms and a living room etc. The ground floor of the house consisted of one dining cum drawing room and three bed rooms, one kitchen, etc. The ground floor had been let out to the present tenant Sh. M.M. Mehra with effect from 1/8/1977 at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,400.00 without any written agreement or rent note. On 12/5/1981 Sh. Butalia filed this eviction application under Section 25B read with clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, (the Act) against Sh. Mehra. The tenant filed an affidavit for leave to defend on 29/6/1981. Leave was refused by the Additional Controller on 22/9/1981. The High Court dismissed his revision on 1 1/2/1982. The Supreme Court on 24/3/1982 allowed his Special Leave Petition and granted him leave to defend the suit. He then filed his written statement on 5/4/1982, Areplication was filed by the landlord on 20/4/1982. The Additional Controller by his order dated 16/12/1982 allowed the application and passed an order for recovery of possession in favour of the landlord. Hence, this revision petition by the tenant.
(2.)The ground on which the eviction was sought were stated at rather too great a length. But the main features are that the premises in question were purely residential, were built as such. were located in residential area, were in use for residential purposes alone and eviction was sought for residential purposes alone. The family of the landlord comprised of himself, his wife, and four adult children and an old mother who is since then dead. By occupation, the landlord is the Chief Sub-Editor of the Times of India. He suffered an attack of angina in March, 1976 and heart attack in September, 1978 and has been advised not to climb stairs. His wife Smt. Subhadra Butalia is a lecturer in English in a Delhi University College and works as a free-lance journalist. She is a well known social worker and runs a counselling service for women. She has been suffering from chronic asthama for the last so many years and climbing stairs makes here breathless and triggers off an attack of asthama. Daughter Bela who was then researching in Rome and was likely to return and prepare her thesis has now returned in March, 1982. The second daughter Urvashi is also employed in the University of Delhi and is the Head of the Department of Book Publishing in College of Vocational Studies. The first son Pankaj Butalia is employed in the Department of Economics in Shri Ram College of Commerce, as a lecturer and is required to do Ph. D. He is also a free lance journalist. The second son Rahul Butalia is a Management Officer in the State Bank of India. He has to clear certain examinations for future promotions. In view of their occupations each one of the members needs a separate study-cum-bed room. That apart, the family needs space for about 4000 books and three typewriters. They also require a dining-cum-living room The family members shown above are dependent on the landlord for their accommodation. The present accommodation on the first floor is not suitable to the health of the petitioner and it is inadequate to the needs of the landlord and his family. The premises on the ground floor are, therefore, required bona fide for his own and family's residential accommodation.
(3.)In the written statement, the tenant said that the application is liable to be rejected as the premises were not let for purposes of residence alone, nor was it pleaded in the application that these were so let. The landlord has also not pleaded that he had no other suitable residential accommodation available. He also disputed that the petitioner was the owner of the disputed premises. He contended that the landlord was only a lessee of the Co-Operative House Building Society. The purposes for which the premises are required are (1) opening of a study room, (2) opening of a counselling cell and (3) establishing a study-cum library of 4000 books. None of these purposes and the purpose of practising the profession of journalism is a residential purpose. These are all non-residential purposes. He also stated that the alleged illness of the landlord and his wife was a hoax. The members of the family are independent of each other and they are all not residing with the landlord. The petitioner has been demanding increase of rent under the threat of eviction. The landlord was under the threat of eviction and vet he rented out the premises in dispute on 1/8/1977 and has thereafter been living happily from 979 with his family in the first floor. The tenant was using the premises both for residential and commercial purposes. One room was specially fitted and exclusively used for office purposes. He is carrying on his activities as sales agent and representative of several national multinational companies for the sale of their goods to the Government of India, the STC and other government organisations. The landlord has assured the tenant not to disturb him even if he had to vacate the Jangpura house and is, therefore, estopped from filing the application for eviction. The application is fanciful and made mala fide. The landlord has been demanding increase of rent. The purpose of eviction is to have an increased rent.
;


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