Case Brief
M.L. Prabhakar v. Rajiv Singal – Appeal (civil) 2143 of 2000
Deciding Authority
Supreme Court
Name of the Judges
S.N. Variava, S.S.M. Quadri JJ.
Date of Judgment
4th January 2001
Facts of the Case
The father of the Respondent was the landlord of the premises in question. He filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. This petition was on the ground of bonafide requirement. He claimed that he had two bed rooms and a verandah on the ground floor of the premises and his family consisted of himself, his wife, his son (the present Respondent), two daughters and their families. He claimed that they did not own any other residential accommodation in Delhi. He, therefore, sought eviction of the Appellant from the first floor of the premises bearing No. 16/58 Gali No.1, Joshi Road, Delhi. The defence of the Appellant was (a) that the Landlord had other suitable residential accommodation at No. 16/57 Gali No. 1, Joshi Road, Delhi and at Basant Road, Pahar Ganj. (b) that the daughters did not stay with the father as they were married and they stayed with their husbands and (c) that the Landlord already had 4 bed rooms in his possession. The Rent Controller by his judgment dated 24th February, 1993 dismissed the eviction petition. The Rent Controller held that there was suitable alternate residential accommodation both at 16/57 Gali No. 1, Joshi Road, Delhi as well as at Basant Road. The Rent Controller held that these had been suppressed. The Rent Controller also held that daughters were not residing with the original landlord. It was also held that the landlord had sufficient number of room in his possession to meet his requirement.
Being aggrieved by this decision, the landlord filed a Revision in the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned order dated 12th November, 1999, allowed the Revision. The High Court set aside the order of the Rent Controller and passed an order of eviction against the Appellant. The High Court held that the requirement of the landlord was bonafide. During the pendency of this Revision before the High Court, the original landlord died. The present Respondent, being his son, was brought on record. It has been urged in this appeal that there was suppression on the part of the landlord in asmuch as he did not disclose the premises which were available at 16/57 Gali No. 1, Joshi Road as well as the premises which were available at Basant Road, Pahar Ganj.
Judgment
On behalf of the Respondent Dr. Singhvi submitted that the only requirement is to disclose such accommodation as is suitable for residence of the landlord. Dr. Singhvi submitted that if there is no other residential accommodation which is suitable then there is no duty to disclose. Dr. Singhvi relied upon the authority in the case of Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors. reported in 1999 (1) S.C.C. 141, wherein it has been held that the question whether the landlord has any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation is a question which is inter-mixed with the question regarding bonafide requirement. It was held that whether the landlord has any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation is a defence for the tenant. It was held that whether the other accommodation is more suitable than the suit premises would not solely depend upon pleadings and non- disclosure by the landlord. It was held that the landlord having another accommodation would not be fatal to the eviction proceedings if both the parties understood the case and placed materials before the court and case of neither party was prejudiced. In this case even though the landlord has not mentioned about the other two premises, the material in respect of the other two premises was placed before the Rent Controller as well as before the High Court, thus Supreme Court stated that no prejudice has been caused.
Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available then the court has to ask the landlord why he is not occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord may convince the court that the alternative residential accommodation though available is still of non consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist.
The landlord had been living in the Defence Colony locality for more than 35 years The Hon’ble Court observed that the first floor which was let out to the tenant in the year 1978 as being an accommodation surplus with the landlord has with the lapse of time become a necessity for occupation by the landlord and his family members. More than ten years by now have been lost in litigation. The deaths of the wife of the landlord, and of the landlord’s mother-in- law, are events which have hardly any bearing on the case of the felt need of the landlord. It was remarked by the court that need as pleaded and proved by the landlord is undoubtedly natural, sincere and honest and hence a bona fide need. There is no material available on record to doubt the genuineness of such need. It continues to subsist in spite of the two deaths. It is not the case of appellant tenant that while seeking eviction of the tenant the landlord is moved by any ulterior motive or is guided by some other thing in his mind. It would be unreasonable to suggest that the landlord may continue to live on the ground floor of the Defence Colony house and some members of the family may move to the Sarvodaya Encalve house if the whole family cannot be conveniently and comfortably accommodated as one unit in the Defence Colony house. It would be equally unreasonable to suggest that the entire family must shift to the Sarvodaya Enclave house which is admittedly situated at a distance of about 7- 8 kilometres from Defence Colony. The landlord and his family are used to living in Defence Colony where they have developed friends and acquaintances, also familiarity with the neighbourhood and the environment. The patients usually visiting or likely to visit the residential clinic know where their doctor would be available.
Shri Arun Jaitley, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that it could not have been the intendment of the rent control law to compel the landlord in such facts and circumstances to shift to a different house and locality so as to permit the tenant to continue to live in the tenanted premises. If the landlord wishes to live with comfort in a house of his own, the law does not command or compel him to squeeze himself tightly into lesser premises protecting the tenant’s occupancy.
The Court also observed that the Sarvodaya Enclave property does not belong to the landlord and is not available for his occupation as an owner. To these facts the applicability of law laid down in Prativa Devi Case was squarely attracted. In the opinion of the Hon’ble Court the availability of the Sarvodaya Enclave property is not of any relevance or germane to determining the need and the bona fides of the need of the landlord.
The trial court had come to the conclusion that the daughters do not stay with the landlord.
However, even the trial court accepted that the wife, the son (who is the present respondent) and his family members stayed with the landlord. The daughters and their family members occasionally visited and stayed. The High Court has also proceeded on the footing that the daughters only occasionally visit. The High Court has held that one additional room may be required for an occasional visit by the other relatives. The High Court has thus found that the requirement of the landlord would be five rooms. The Supreme Court held that there is no infirmity in these findings.
Lastly, the Court remarked that even if premises at Basant Road are available it can hardly be suggested that some of the members of the family of the landlord should stay at the suit premises and the others stay at Basant Road. Neither, by itself, is large enough to accommodate fully the need of the landlord. Thus the premises at Basant Road cannot be said to be reasonably suitable alternate accommodation. In view of the above, the Supreme Court found no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court.
It became clear that the landlord is getting the Appellant evicted on the ground of their bonafide personal requirement. The Court remarked that If, therefore, in the near future it is found that this was a false ground and that after getting the Appellant evicted the premises are not being used for personal use of the landlord and his family as claimed, the Appellant will be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings for restitution and to get back the premises from the Respondent. At the request of the Appellant the court granted six months’ time i.e. till end of June, 2001 to vacate the premises provided the Appellant files in this Court the usual undertaking within two weeks from today.
Decision
The Appeal was dismissed without any order to costs.
Shubham Shandilya, 4th Year, B.B.A. LL.B., Symbiosis Law School, Pune
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS