MADAN LAL Vs. TEJ RAM
LAWS(DLH)-1983-3-28
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on March 24,1983

MADAN LAL Appellant
VERSUS
TEJ RAM Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SURESH CHAND GARG & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-1991-2-85] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

G.C.Jain,J. - (1.)Tej Ram, Respondent herein, is owner of a double storeyed house situated in Chowk Mata Mandir, Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, bearing Municipal No. 4838 (First Floor) and 4839 (Ground Floor). Madan Lal, Petitioner herein, is in occupation of a room and a common verandah on the ground floor of the house as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 16/ under the respondent. On February 23, 1977 the respondent sought the eviction of the petitioner from the premises under proviso (e) to sub-section (1) of section 14 and Section 14-A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short Act). It was averred that the premises in dispute had been let out for residential purposes and were required by him for occupation as residence for himself and members of his family and he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. It was further alleged that he had been allotted a Government quarter No. G-132, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi, but has been directed by the Government to vacate the same by December 31, 1975 on the ground that he owned his own house and he had also been threatened that the rent would be charged at market rate if the premises were not vacated by that date.
(2.)The petitioner admitted that the respondent was the owner of the premises. The averment that it was let out for residential purposes was not specifically denied. It was, however, alleged that the respondent was in occupation of a big room measuring 16' x 11, kitchen bath, latrine and a terrace on the first floor and another room measuring 10x8' which had been recently vacated by his tenant, Jodha Ram on the first floor, which accommodation was sufficient for his requirement. The allegations regarding the allotment of Srinivaspuri quarter and the directions of the Government were denied. It was pointed out that the respondent never shifted to that quarter and had been letting out the same to various persons and at the moment one M.P. Khanduri was residing there with his family members. It was also pleaded that Section 14-A was not applicable and the application was highly belated and was mala-fide.
(3.)The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated May 23, 1980 held that the notification of the year 1973 had since been modified and because of the modification the respondent was not entitled to claim eviction under Section 14-A(1) of the Act. The correctness of this finding has not been assailed before me on behalf of the respondent-landlord.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.