Modified Ranking Revision Petition challenging dismissal of eviction plea under Delhi Rent Control Act. Court dismissed revision, holding no material to show landlord's accommodation was inadequate.
Petitioner's petition and revision application dismissed finding no reason to interfere with impugned judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
+ RC.REV. 425/2011 and CM No.19507/2011
% Reserved on: 6th January, 2015 Decided on: 9th January, 2015
MAHAVIR PRASAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Charan Garg and Mr. Imran Khan, Advocates.
versus
VED BHARAT KAPOOR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arvind K. Goel, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
(i) Though in Para 15 (D2) learned Trial Court holds that the requirement of one room by the Petitioner for his another son i.e. Ravi who is residing in U.K. at present along with his family but visits the petitioner is not mala fide in view of the judgment reported as Brij Mohan Vs. Sri Pal Jain 1993 RLR 190 however, in Para 15 (D5) he
RC.REV. 425/2011 Page 1 of 6
holds the same requirement not to be bonafide and that one regular room is not required for the said purpose.
(ii) Learned Trial Court erroneously held that the petitioner concealed the material fact regarding the vacation of portion by one of the tenants Mr. Yusuf Ali during the pendency of the proceedings. According to the petitioner in the counter affidavit filed to the leave to defend application, the petitioner had clearly mentioned that Yusuf Ali another tenant in the premises who had two rooms with him had vacated the premises on 5th February, 2004. An inadvertent error in the affidavit Ex.PW-1/A cannot lead to the conclusion that there was material concealment.
(iii) Thirdly, despite admission of the respondent that the son of the petitioner Vinod Kumar was having a computer learned Trial Court erroneously rejects the bona-fide requirement of one computer room on the ground that present is the age of laptop and thus there is no requirement for a separate computer room.
RC.REV. 425/2011 Page 2 of 6
that bedrooms for the married daughters and for the guests or for that matter one study/ pooja room cannot be said to be an exaggerated requirement. Relying upon Brij Mohan Vs. Sri Pal Jain 1993 RLR 190 it is contended that the landlord can require accommodation for his married sons even if the latter are earning and can set up independent homes. Further the tenant cannot base claims on the size of the rooms.
RC.REV. 425/2011 Page 3 of 6
time of filing of the petition was three rooms, one kitchen, bath room, one toilet and one latrine-cum-bathroom on the ground floor, two rooms, one kitchen, common toilet and bath room on the first floor and two rooms, one kitchen, tin shed and a common latrine and bathroom on the second floor which were in possession of another tenant namely Yusuf Ali which were vacated during the pendency of the proceedings and a Mumty under the staircase which cannot be termed as a room, as the same is not habitable being of 3 ft. height. The petitioner’s family comprises of himself, his wife, his two sons namely Vinod aged 25 years working in GE Capital, Gurgaon, Haryana and Ravi Kumar aged about 28 years. The petitioner has five sisters who are married but frequently visit the property in question and stay at night. The elder son of petitioner namely Ravi Kumar is doing service in U.K. but he visits the property in question 2-3 times in a year and stays there for months at a time and thus the petitioner requires accommodation for him. Thus according to the petitioner he requires at least 8 living rooms, one for himself, one for his marriageable son Vinod Kumar, one for his married son Ravi Kumar and his wife and one drawing room, one dining room, one pooja room, one guest room and a computer room for Vinod Kumar who does the work of computers.
RC.REV. 425/2011 Page 4 of 6
RC.REV. 425/2011 Page 5 of 6
Court that the petitioner is in possession of rooms more than his requirement is erroneous, however from the evidence on record there is no material to come to the conclusion that the accommodation available to the petitioner is inadequate and thus he has a bona-fide requirement of one more room at this stage.
(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE
JANUARY 09, 2015 ‘ga’
RC.REV. 425/2011 Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional court can interfere with the lower court's finding that the landlord's requirement for an additional computer room was not bona fide.
Whether the finding that the landlord possessed sufficient accommodation despite the tenant's plea of shortage is perverse.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Brij Mohan Vs. Sri Pal JainReferred¶12
Brij Mohan Vs. Sri Pal Jain 1993 RLR 190
Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.Referred¶17
Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 100 · Who else cites this
Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh ChandReferred¶17
Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand 1999 RLR (SC) 417
Shri Hari Shankar Vs. Madan Mohan GuptaReferred¶18
Shri Hari Shankar Vs. Madan Mohan Gupta 2004 RLR 404
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahavir Prasad
Ved Bharat Kapoor
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
