Mohinder Paul Bhardwaj v. Sita Ram Dhingra And Another
!" #$# %
& ' (
%
%"
)& %# (
( (
( (
+ # ,-./
! " !!
!! # $,0- ! - - --1 0 - 2 !1!/ % % & ' ( ) *%+ % ,-, ,0- ! - - --1 0 /+ %#
$!
,0- ! - - --1 0 2 !- /
) $.$./ ,!
& /(/../.( /./../.0
!# . ! ! $ & ! ! ! ( " $!
#
&1!
%-/# !#
-//$1
& 2' &3
4 %
!
& !' ' *3 . !
%* )
4 %# ! !!
! ' ' & !
-
!# & ! ! % ! 1&1 ! .
! ! *& 5*#& &
%# " !!
.-/6.//.
! ! %# !
&
%#
!! # & , ..//(
!! #!
!
!
7
!# 6 8 & ! !!
& 1
$
!
"
#
$ %
&
$ ' $ 0 9 !
! " !! &! 4 %
!! ! & !
' '
!
!
! ! 7 %
* &
%#: !)71-
# % %
% ! %#% &
!
!
! & !#
& & /(/../.( ; 8!
! !
!! # !
&
& &
/./../.0 ! $%
!! # 1
( )
$
+
,
+
-
. &#
$
/
&
$
&
)
) -
)
)
&
(01 2
&
3
4
)
) 5
6 7 . 8) 9
(01 & 4
- +
3
# , 7 8:9 ;
$, & <
$ 8:9 $# 7 < . ,
7
3 #
= ,
#
!
3
#
= 2
&
&
&
&
1 < It is well settled that landlord is the best judge of his own requirement and a tenant cannot dictate him the way how to live and it is
for the landlord to see as to what accommodation is needed by him and his family members. However, there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. Requirement must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretense or pretext to evict a tenant. The only way to determine the existence of ground of bonafide personal necessity is that the judge should place himself in the armchair of the landlord and then pose a 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 and honest and if the answer is in the positive, the need is bonafide. Reference in this regard can be made to 2004(2) RCR-436 (SC) Pratap Rai Tanwani Vs. Uttam Chand.
9.
In the present case, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have arrived at a concurrent finding that the demised premises is required by petitioner No.1 for starting his own business as well as for settling his maternal grandson Sushant Sethi, who is the son of his divorced daughter Pooja Dhingra. Nothing could be shown by the respondent/tenant that the need of the landlord was not bonafide or that he owns some other shop in the Urban Area concerned or that he has got the same vacated without sufficient cause. It is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and a tenant cannot be allowed to dictate to him the way how to live. In 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 160, M/s Satpal Vijay Kumar Vs. Sushil Kumar, it has been held that when eviction is sought on the ground of bonafide need, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the assumption that the requirement is not bonafide. If the landlord states that he needs the demised shop for establishment of
his business or to extend the business, his need should always be presumed as correct and genuine. As such, the bonafide need as pleaded by the petitioners cannot be doubted, particularly when the respondent has failed to lead any evidence to show that the claim of the landlords is malafide or that there is no element of need and it is a mere desire or wish.
10.
Learned Rent Controller, thus, appreciated the pleadings and evidence on the file in the correct perspective while coming to the conclusion that the landlords require the demised premises for their own bonafide need and the finding of the Rent Controller has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. No other reasonable finding could have been arrived at from the evidence on file and the impugned judgments, thus, do not suffer from any manifest error or illegality and the law has also been rightly applied. No interference in the impugned judgments passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority is called for and the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 11.
As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is ordered to be dismissed. However, the petitioner/tenant is granted two months' time to vacate the demised premises from today, subject to payment of the entire arrears of rent/mesne profits within 15 days. ,( (
/ /0/(./.0
=
$ > $ = %! > $