Harish Chander Sharma vs Birma Devi (deceased) through LRs.

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—By this petition u/s 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short, ''the DRC Act'') read with Section 115 of CPC, the petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 3rd July 2002 passed by learned ARC whereby he dismissed a petition of the petitioner u/s 14(1)(e), read with Section 25B of DRC Act.

The petitioner filed an eviction petition in respect of property bearing No. 309, Bara Thakur Dwara, Shahdara, Delhi which was under tenancy of Mr. Om Prakash on a monthly rent of Rs. 6/- and after death of Om Prakash, his LRs were in occupation of the property. He was having six sons and two daughters, the details of which were given by the petitioner as under:

Sons:

Shri Shiv Shankar, wife and 4 children

Shri Brahm Dutt, wife and 3 children

Shri Sat Narain, wife and 3 children

Shri Anil Kant, wife and 2 children

Shri Pradit Kant, Wife and 2 children

Shri Vishnu Dutt, Wife and 3 children

Daughters:

Smt. Gomati, married with children

Smt. Radha Rani, married with children.

It is submitted by the petitioner that he was living in a part of Temple. He and his family members were in great difficulty due to paucity of accommodation and he bonafidely required tenanted premises for himself and his family members. Her two married daughters also used to visit him occasionally and the felt difficulty to accommodate them in the accommodation with him in he temple. The respondent filed leave to defend application which was allowed by the trial court and the parties led evidence. The respondent tenant had raised the issue of ownership and letting purposes in the written statement, apart from denying the bona fide requirements of the petitioner. The tenant had alleged that the petitioner was not the owner and letting purpose was not purely residential but was a composite purpose. However, the learned ARC, after considering the evidence led by parties, came to conclusion that the respondent was the owner of the premises for the purpose of DRC Act and the letting purpose was also residential and not composite. The tenant failed to prove if any business was carried out from the premises. As far as bonafide requirement of the petitioner was concerned, the learned ARC held against the petitioner and in favour of the tenant.

The family of the petitioner, as detailed above, was not in dispute. It was also not in dispute that the petitioner was living in the temple in one room with his wife. His two sons Pradit Kant and Braham Dutt were in possession of one room each in temple bearing No. 190, Mohalla Ganga Ram, Shahdara, Delhi- 110032. The petitioner''s contention was that he required the tenanted premises for his family''s residence and for his two sons Pradit Kant and Braham Dutt, who were dependent on him for the residence. The respondent on the other hand had taken the plea that the petitioner was in possession of six rooms in temple while he was living only in one room, five other rooms were lying vacant in the temple.

It is undisputed that the property No. 190 Mohalla Ganga Ram, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 is a temple and the petitioner is ''Mahant'' of this temple. The petitioner during his cross examination deposed that out of these six rooms, he was living in one room and other rooms were kept vacant for various functions of the temple. He deposed that the goods belonging to the temple were stored in these rooms and the rooms were also used for various functions like Janamastmi, Raj Navmi, Dussehera, Diwali etc. The case of the respondent is that five rooms were lying vacant. The petitioner had explained in detail as to what for this vacancy was. The learned ARC, however, observed that the petitioner''s pleadings were silent on the possession of the petitioner qua these rooms or that these five rooms were required for various functions of the temple. It was further observed by the learned ARC that the petitioner had not led any documentary evidence which could establish that these rooms were required for the various functions of the temple. Learned ARC, therefore, observed that though the petitioner was in possession of and living in one room, but it has not been proved that these extra rooms were being used for temple work and he, therefore, found that the petitioner failed to prove that he was in shortage of accommodation.

I consider that the observations of the learned ARC are misplaced, misconceived and contrary to the evidence and testimony in respect of usage of the rooms for the temple for various religious functions of the temple. No documentary evidence could have been produced by a Mahant as to how and when these rooms were used for the purpose of the temple. It is common knowledge that during religious festivals like Janamastmi, Raj Navmi, Dussehera, Diwali and on various other religious occasions, the temple would need additional accommodation. Many temples put tents outside on the roads to arrange this additional space. The rooms are required by the temple for storage purposes. Raw material for Prasadam, food and regrettable donations are required to be stored and rooms are also required for accommodating additional ''Pandits'' and the goods which are required for the occasion. During these periods, most of the temples are fervent with various activities and required volunteers and extra managerial staff. They require extra rooms for management of these functions. In most of the temples, some rooms are kept vacant for these functions. The observations of the learned ARC that no documentary evidence was given by the petitioner about the requirements of the rooms during various festivals, are thus out of place. Oral evidence given by a Mahant/petitioner was sufficient to prove this fact. The petitioners were living in one room despite other rooms lying vacant itself proves that these rooms were not being occupied by the petitioner so that these rooms could be utilized by the temple from time to time on various functions. If these rooms would have been available to the petitioner for residential purposes, the petitioner would not have kept them vacant and would have lived in them. In fact, the respondent himself admitted that the petitioner was living in one room and five rooms were left vacant. This admission on the part of the respondent was sufficient to prove the case of the petitioner that these rooms were kept vacant for the temple. I consider that the learned ARC went wrong in considering that rooms kept vacant for temple''s use were available to the petitioner. This accommodation was not available to the petitioner and was only meant for the temple.

The large family of the petitioner is not in dispute and neither denied. The other two sons of the petitioner are also living in the same premises and occupying only one room each. The family of the sons of the petitioner, as aforestated, had not been denied. It is also not denied that the married daughters of the petitioner and his sons keep on visiting the petitioner.

I consider that the requirements of the petitioner was bonafide and justified. The decision of the learned ARC on the face of it suffers from error in considering the rooms for temple''s requirement available to the petitioner and passing a judgment ignoring the material evidence of the petitioner and of his sons regarding bonafide requirements. It is settled principle of law that while exercising jurisdiction u/s 25(8) of the DRC Act, the Court would look into the evidence of the witnesses for the limited purpose of seeing whether the order of the learned ARC was in accordance with the evidence placed on record or not and suffers from any illegality. In the present case, the petitioner''s evidence was ignored on the ground that there was no documentary evidence of the usage of these rooms by the temple. There was error apparent on the face of record.

Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order passed by learned ARC is hereby set aside and an eviction order is hereby passed against the respondents. However, three months'' time is granted to the respondents to vacate the premises. Respondents are directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the petitioner within three months from today.