INDIAN PAPER MACHINARY AND ENGINEERING WORKS LIMITED Vs. SARWARTH LAL JAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been brought againt order of eviction dated October 28, 1986, of Shri B.B.Chaudhary, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, on the ground of bonafide requirement of residence covered by clause (e) of sub-section I of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that the respondent-landlord is the owner of house No. H-42, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, which is two and a half storeyed building and he had constructed this building in the year 1967 and was living with his family members the ground floor of the said house while he had let out the first floor of this house comprising of four bed rooms, one drawing-cum dining and other facilities to the petitioner in November 1968 under an oral agreement. The landlord's father admittedly is the owner of house No. 205, Jor Bagh which has two bed rooms accommodation on the ground floor and similar type of accommodation on the first floor and one barsati room with a toilet on the second floor. At the time of creation of tenancy in question, the respondent's brother (AW2),who was then working in Indian Oil Corporation, was living on the ground floor of house No. 205, Jor Bagh, with respondent's father. The first floor of the said house in Jor Bagh was in occupation of another brother who retired as Brigadier. AW2, the brother of respondent was transferred to Nepal in the year 1970 or so and the respondent's mother had died. So, the respondent's father was alone living on the ground floor of that house which necessitated the shifting of the respondent with his family members to the said place in order to look after the father and give him company. It has also come out in evidence that Brigadier brother of the respondent was married to an English lady and the said family was non-vegetarian whereas respondent's father is strictly vegetarian. Hence, the respondent's father could not have joined himself with his Brigadier son's family. During the pendency of the case that Brigadier brother of respondent had died and still his widow and two children are living on the first floor. AW2 had retired from the Indian Oil Corporation in the year 1981 and he, with his wife and a married son and a grand child, has started living on the ground floor of the said house in Jor Bagh and it was pleaded by the respondent that his father had asked him to shift back to his own house due to paucity of accommodation available in the said house at Jor Bagh. Hence, the respondent brought the eviction petition against the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement of residence setting up the ingredients of the said ground of bonafide requirement in detail.

(3.) The eviction petition was contested by the petitioner on all possible grounds. However, during the course of arguments before me, it is not disputed that the respondent is the owner-landlord of the premises in question. With regard to the letting purpose, the case set up by the petitioner is that in fact, the premises in question had been taken on rent for the purpose of setting up an office of the petitioner-company besides being used for the residence of Shri S.R. Balotia, one of the directors of the petitioner-company and also as a guest house of the company and that since from inception of the tenancy the premises have been used for the said purposes. It is, indeed, not in dispute that said Shri Balotia has been residing alongwith his family members in the permises in question from the very inception of the tenancy. Admittedly no document of letting was executed. The landlord appearing as AW1 made a categorical statement that the talks of tenancy took place between him and Shri Balotia and the the premises had been let out only for residential purpose It was not suggested to him in the cress-examination that anyone else was present when such talks took place, whereas Shri Balotia coming as RW1 deposed that he did not remember whether the talk of letting took place between him and the respondent. However, he went on to state that possibly the talk of letting took place between him and the respondent's father. This was a new place being set up by Shri Balotia for the first time in his statement because neither to respondent, who appeared as AWI, rorto respondent's father, who appeared as AW4, any suggestion was given that at the time the letting took place, respondent's father was also present. Shri Balotia stated that he had no knowledge that any resolution was passed by the board of directors of the petitioner-company for taking the premises in the question on rent. At any rate, neither it has been pleaded nor has it been referred to in evidence that any resolution of the board of directors of the petitioner-company to the effect that permises are being taken on rent for non-residential purposes as well was ever brought to the notice of the respondent. We have only sworn testimony of the respondent on the one hand and similarly sworn testimony of Shri Balotia on the other hand with regard to the terms of tenancy settled between both of them when no one else was present.