PRABHU CHAUDHARY Vs. SHRI HIRA LAL KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated 13th September, 1983 of an Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, directing eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises, viz. a portion of property No. H-2/6, Model Town, Delhi, on the ground falling under clause (e) of proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE facts leading to this revision petition in brief are that way back in January, 1980, respondent, who is practising as an advocate at Delhi, moved an eviction petition against the Petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement falling under clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) read with Section 25B of the Act. He averred that he was the owner of property bearing No. H-2/6, Model Town and that a portion thereof comprising two rooms, two kitchens, one gallery a wooden store, bath and latrine on the first floor described as servant quarter by him and a hall on the ground floor at the back of his main bungalow, as shown in red colour in the plan annexed thereto, had been let to the petitioner orally in July, 1976 at Rs. 600/- per month for residential purpose only. He sought the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he was in need of the servant quarters described above for his domestic servant and the family of his servant, as he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to lodge his servant and members of the latter's family. He further averred that as a practising advocate at Delhi he was having his office in Chandni Chowk on the first floor but on account of his being a heart patient he had been advised by doctor not to climb up the stairs which were very high and, therefore, he required the hall on the ground floor which was in the tenancy of the petitioner for his office and library. He claimed to be a person of status and asserted that the demised premises in question were required by him bonafide for his personal need and occupation.

(3.) ON its plain language an order of eviction under section 14(1)(e) can be made if the landlord is able, interalia, to establish that (1) the premises in question were let for residential purpose, (2) the premises are required bonafide by him for occupation as residence for himself and for any member of his family dependent upon him or for any other person for whose benefit the premises are held and (3) the landlord or such other person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The learned Additional Rent Controller has found that the respondent is the owner landlord. This finding has not been called in question by the petitioner in this revision petition. However, the finding of the trial Court that there was a single tenancy in respect of the entire premises, as detailed above, in favour of the petitioner and that the letting purpose was residential only has been seriously assailed by the petitioner. Further, the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that the respondent requires the premises in question bonafide for himself and member of his family i.e. his domestic servant has been severely assailed by the petitioner.