P.N. Khanna, J. - (1.) This second appeal against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal arises out of an eviction petition, which was filed by the appellant-landlord against respondent No. 1 tenant on the ground that the appellant bonafide required the premises-in-dispute for his residence and the residence of his family members and that he had no other reasonably-suitable accommodation with him.
(2.) The premises-in-dispute had, originally been let out to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2, who is appellant's brother; and alongwith whom the appellant jointly owned the said premises and certain other portion of the property. In settlement of a long standing dispute between the brothers, the premises in-dispute were allotted to the appellant, under a partition decree dated September 1959. Respondent No. 1 accordingly became a tenant under the appellant. Respondent No. 2, by a letter, specifically directed respondent No. 1 to attorn to the appellant. Before the partition decree between the brothers, the appellant was residing in a portion of the property which as a result of the said partition, was allotted to respondent No. 2. According to a term of the partition decree, the appellant was to retain possession of the said portion occupied by him, only till he could recover possession of the premises-in-dispute and other portion of the property from his tenants, viz respondent No. 1, and Gautam Dev. It was also stipulated, inter alia, that if respondent No. 2 paid to the appellant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in cast, appellant would vacate the premises at once. The two tenants, respondent No. 1 and Gautam Dev did not vacate. Respondent No. 2, however, offered Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant, who accepting the same had to vacate the said premises. The appellant finding no other place to go to, started living since March 29, 1960, the date on which he surrendered possession of the aforesaid property to his brother, as a guest of one of his friends, Rup Narain, PW2, who appeared as a witness for the appellant. Since then, the appellant has continued to live with the said Rup Narain at his mercy and sufferance. He has no right to remain in that premises.
(3.) It was under these circumstances, that the appellant on April 12, 1960, filed the petition for eviction of respondent No. 1. S. P. Bedi, appellant's aforesaid brother was impleaded as respondent No. 2. In the petition, another ground that respondent No. 1 had sublet and parted with possession of one room to some lady teacher, without the permission of the landlord was also taken, but never pressed.;