B K KHANNA Vs. M R BATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen out of an application filed by the landlord who is practising as an Advocate of the Supreme Court against the tenant for ejectment on the grounds that he had failed to pay arrears of rent since 1st June, 1959 inspite of service of notice of demand and that the existing accommodation was not reasonably. suitable for his residence and that he required the premises in dispute which consist of three rooms on the first floor of a house at Shanker Road for. the residence of himself and his family. The arrears of rent having been paid by the tenant in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act), the only ground which remained available to the landlord was the second one which has' been found against him by the Rent Controller as also the Rent Control Tribunal.

(2.) Mr. Bhagwat Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant, has given a resume of the facts .which have not been disputed. The appellant, who was a displaced person, applied for allotment of Government accomodation in the year 1952-1953. In April 1953 he deposited a sum of Rs. 16,500.00 for purchasing the house inquestion. On 14th January 1954 the Government sanctioned the sale in his favour. On .8th February 1954 the Housing and' Rent Officer, Delhi directed the Circle Officer, Patel Nagar, New Dlhi to hand over the possession of the house to the appellant (Exhibit p. 8). On 1st August 1958 the appellant let out the premises in dispute comprising three rooms kitchen, bath-room etc. On the first-floor to the respondent at a monthly rental of Rs. 130.00 The formal deed of conveyance as also the lease deed were executed by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi-in favour of the appellant on 14th April 1960. On 28th July, 1960 the appellant filed an application under section 14 of the Act. It was stated inter alia in this application that the applicant had started practising as an Advocate and he' also Wanted to write books since he had been doing so before. The ground-floor was wholly' inadequate for his needs for purposes of residence arid office. He had a large family and his wife and one of his sons were residing permanently with him but he had five children and ten grand-children who come to pay visits to him and when any of them was transferred to Delhi he had to live with him and, therefore, the accomodation in his possession was wholly inadequate. The respondent pleaded the bar of section 14(6) to the maintainability of the application. According to that provision, where a landlord had acquired any premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such premisid shall lie under subsection (1) on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso thereto, unless a period of rive years has elapsed from the date of the acquisition. The Rent Controller upheld the objection of the respondent that since the appellant acquired ownership of the suit-premises by means of the conveyance deed (Exhibit P. 4) dated 14th April 196D he was debarred from seeking eviction under clause (e) of the proviso to section 14(1). The Rent controller was further;.of the opinion that the accommodation in the possession of the appellant could not be be considered to be inadequate because he had two residential rooms available to him on the first-floor and that the only dependent members of his family residing with him were his wife and his son, aged 20, and that he had been using the three rooms on the groundfloor for his residence since 1957.

(3.) he Rent Control Tribunal, after referring to the documents produced by the appellant in the matter of acquisition of the property in dispute, said that there was no evidence to show as to when the sale had been sanctioned in his favour. According to it, the sale must be deemed to have been made in his favour on 14th April 1960 when the lease deed and the sale deed were executed. He agreed with the Rent Controller's view that the appellant was debarred under section 14 (6) from filing an application for ejectment under clause (e) of the proviso to section 14 (1) for a period of five years. On the other point of the bona fide requirement of the landlord the Rent Control Tribunal held that since the appellant intended to convert the existing residential accommodation in his possession into an office and library for the use of his clerk and clients, such a user was not permissible in law. In other words, if he wanted to start his practice in the premises in his possession wherein he resided, he could not get the premises in dispute vacated under the provision of clause (e) of the proviso to section 14 (1). The interpretation of the aforesaid provision by the Rent Control Tribunal may be reproduced in its own words :-