9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 1001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remises are situated at D-219, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The building has two floors and a Barsati. The accommodation in each of the two floors consists of two bathrooms, two bedrooms, a study room, a glazed verandah, a drawing-cumdining room and a kitchen. There is a garage on the ground floor and a servant room on the Barsati floor. The landlord is occupying the ground floor. In July, 1978 the first floor and the Barsati were let out by the landlord to the tenant -appellant for residential purpose. There was some controversy whether one room of the suit premises had formed part of the tenancy or was illegally encroached upon and taken possession of by the tenant. However, that controversy is over and the parties before us have proceeded on assumption that the., premises in occupation of the tenant are all included in the tenancy. 4. The landlord-respondent is a practising doctor presently about 78 years of age. In January, 1988 when the proceedings for eviction were initiated, the family of the landlord consisted of himself, his wife, a son Munish (also a practising doctor), 14-12-2018 (Page 1 of 8) www.manupatra.com Surender Gupta daughter-in-law and a grand son. The landlor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. However, on the solitary ground for ejectment, he held the alleged need of the landlord to be not bonafide. He further held that consequent upon the death of the mother-in-law and the wife of the landlord, the accommodation in possession of the landlord was sufficient to satisfy his requirement and therefore it could not be held that the landlord was bona fidely in need of any additional accommodation. The learned Additional Rent Controller was also impressed by an admission of the landlordrespondent made in his statement that the Sarvodya Enclave property if available to the landlord would have been sufficient to meet his requirement. The death of the landlord's wife in whose name stood the property was a subsequent event having impact on the availability of the said accommodation to the landlord for satisfying his alleged need. In view of these findings the Additional Rent Controller has by order dated 24.8.1995, dismissed the application for eviction. 8. The landlord preferred a revision to the High Court. The landlord also moved an application styled as one under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the CPC inviting the attention of the High Court to the effect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erfere with and reverse the same. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the High Court has committed a serious jurisdictional irregularity by taking into consideration the documents filed for the first time by the landlord before the High Court without formally admitting the same in evidence and without affording the tenant appellant an opportunity of rebutting the additional evidence. 10. Shri Arun Jaitley, the learned senior counsel for the landlord-respondent has supported the order of the High Court. He submitted that the documents placed before the High court by the landlord along with his application merely intended a subsequent event to be brought to the notice of the High Court. The documents were of undoubted veracity. He further submitted that the ultimate finding arrived at by the High Court would not be dislodged even if the documents accompanying the application were excluded from consideration. At the end submitted Shri Jaitley that the finding arrived at by the High Court was the only finding that could have been reasonably arrived at from the material available on record and hence the conclusion arrived at by the Additional Rent Controller being not one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat of an Appellate Court. The High Court cannot enter into appreciation or re-appreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were a court of facts. However, the High Court is obliged to test the order of the Rent Controller on the touchstone of whether it is according to law'. For that limited purpose it may enter into re-appraisal of evidence, that is, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller is wholly unreasonable or is one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could have reached that conclusion on the material available. Ignoring the weight of evidence, proceeding on wrong premise of law or deriving such conclusion from the established facts as betray the lack of reason and/or objectivity would render the finding of the Controller 'not according to law' calling for an interference under proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 25B of the Act. A judgment leading to miscarriage of justice is not a judgment according to law. [See; Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR1999SC100 and Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors. AIR1998SC3012 . 12. A p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court. The Judge of facts should place himself .in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself-whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... render Gupta wherefrom they come. 15. A few decided cases apposite to the point may be referred. A Division Bench of Madhya Bharat High Court in Motilal v. Badrilal ILR (1954) MB 1. interpreted Clause (g) of the Madhya Bharat Sthan Niyantran Vidhan Samvat, 2006 where-under a landlord was entitled to eject a tenant if he really needs a house for himself and he possesses no other accommodation belonging to him elsewhere , (t was held that the landlord was made the sole arbiter of his own requirements but he must prove that he in fact wants and genuinely intended to occupy-the premises. His claim would no doubt fail if the Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of want was unreliable and that the landlord did not genuinely intend to occupy the premises. As to alternative accommodation disentitling the landlord to the relief of possession it was held that it must be reasonably equivalent as regards suitability in respect to the accommodation he was claiming. This statement of law was cited with approval before a Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Damodar Sharma and Anr. v. Nandram Deviram AIR1960MP345 . Pandey, J. recording the majority opinion emphasised t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esire to become a requirement in law must have the objective element of a need . It must also be such that the court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely illusory or whittled down. 20 . In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR1999SC100 this Court has held that the Rent Controller should not proceed on the assumption that the landlord's requirement is not bonafide. When the landlord shows a prima facie case a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide is available to be drawn. It is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without giving possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. 21. In Prativa Devi (Smt) v. T.V. Krishnan (1996)5SCC353 , this Court has held that in considering the availability of alternative accommodation, not availability m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nclave house which is admittedly situated at a distance of about 7-8 kilometers from Defence Colony. The landlord and his family are used to living in Defence Colony where they 14-12-2018 (Page 7 of 8) www.manupatra.com Surender Gupta 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, has very rightly 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. In addition, we find that on the date of the initiation of the proceedings, Sarvodaya Enclave property was belonging to the wife of the landlord or to one of his sons resident abroad and was in actual occupation of a tenant. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
