GANGA RAM SHARMA Vs. DIRECTOR BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant landlord who was working in United States of America as an Administrative Assistant in the World Bank, let out the first floor of his house no. 0-161, Naraina Vihar New Delhi on 13th October 19^8 for a limited period of 22 months. The reason given in the affidavit in support of the application for letting out the premises for a limited period was that he did not require the premises for a period of 22 months and thereafter he would need the premises for his own use and occupation because he was likely to be transferred back to India The Additional Rent Controller after considering the application of the appellant, the statement of the attorney of the appellant and the statement of the respondent granted permission to the respondent to occupy the premises till 12th August 1980. At the time when the permission was granted, the appellant's father alongwith the appellant's mother and brother were residing in rented premises at 14/17 East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Since the respondent did not vacate the premises after the expiry of the period, the appellant filed an application for execution before the Additional Rent Controller which was objected to by the respondent. The Additional Rent Controller by order dated 7th January 1985 dismissed the application filed by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which was also dismissed by order dated 29th November 1985. The appellant has challenged these two orders in this second appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the appellant that during the period of 22 months of the tenancy, certain material changes took place. The ground floor of the property at G-161, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi which was under the tenancy of M.E.O. Delhi Cantt fell vacant on 11th November 1980. His father who was staying at East Patel Negar had to vacate the premises because he lost in the eviction petition filed by his landlord and the father alongwith the mother shifted to the ground floor flat. The appellant's brother Shri Devender Nath Sethia alongwith his family comprising of his wife, three daughters and one son who lived with the father bad to shift lo rented accommodation of two rooms belonging to his fathei-in-law at Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The appellant did not succeed in getting himself transferred to India before the execution petition was filed but now because of the re-organisation of the World Bank, the appellant has lost his assignment with the World Bank and be has been asked to shift his household effects and car to New Delhi on or before 30th November 1988.

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the observation of the Additional Rent Controller that no reason was mentioned in the application under Section 21 for letting out the premises is not correct. Reason was given in the application. The Rent Control Tribunal did not agree with the Additional Rent Controller but held that though reason was given it was a mindless order because the appellant had not proved that he was likely to be transferred to India and, therefore, the reason given by him was not bona fide. Learned counsel submitted that this finding of the Rent Control Tribunal is not correct because when the appellant gave the premises to the respondent he was hoping to get himself transferred back to India in the near future. Though he did not succeed in getting the transfer, the reason given in the application was genuine. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of lhe Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Lal v. Ramesh Khanna, 1987 (4) SCC 1 and submitted that what is necessary is that the statement of the landlord must be bona fide and there must not be any fraud or collusion. Learned counsel contended that the very fact that the appellant has now come back to India for good and has lost his assignment with the World Bank shows that the reason given by him in the application was bona fide. The other circumstances regarding the need of the father and the brother mentioned in the application for execution were only additional and incidential.