B N MITTAL Vs. D D KAKKAR
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
N.N.Goswamy, J. -
(1.)This second appeal by the tenant is directed against the order dated 18-5-1979 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the first appeal of the tenant against the order of eviction was dismissed.
(2.)The appellant is a tenant in the first floor of the property bearing Municipal No. 900, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi since 1961. The respondent landlord filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(l),(b),(e)& (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. I am not concerned in this appeal with clauses (b) and (e) inasmuch as the petition of the landlord under these two clauses was negatived and the eviction based only on clause (h) of Section 14(1). It was pleaded that apellant had recently acquired vacant possession of residence in G-114, Anand Niketan where he has shifted with his family. The notice of eviction in the present case was dated 30-6-1971.
(3.)In the written statement the appellant took up the plea that he had not acquired any new residence and that the said house G-114 Anand Niketan had been taken on rent by hii wife who is an independent partner in the business and is not dependent upon the appellant. It wai further averred that the premises in dispute being located near the place of the appellant are being kept by the appellant for his own independent use. The facts mentioned in the eviction petition that the appellant with his family had shifted to the new residence in G-1 14, Anand Niketan were not controverted.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.