RAM GOPAL KEJRIWAL Vs. DEVKI RANI
LAWS(DLH)-1983-3-27
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on March 17,1983

RAM GOPAL KEJRIWAL Appellant
VERSUS
DEVKI RANI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KEDAR NATH V. KARTAR RAW [REFERRED TO]
AMBEY PERAHAD RAM NATH V. DEVKI NANDAN [REFERRED TO]
ANAND NIVAS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ANANDJI KALYANJIS PEDHI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

N.N.Goswamy - (1.)This second appeal by the tenant is directed against the judgment dated April 15, 1978 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, whereby his appeal against the eviction order was dismissed.
(2.)The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction against the appellant on the grounds covered by Clauses (a), (b), (d) and (h) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of S. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In paragraph 18(a) of the Eviction Petition, it was alleged :
"(i) That the respondent has neither paid nor tendered whole of the arrears of rent with effect from 20th August, 1968 and a sum of Rs. 4960.00 is due uptill 31st January, 1972 which the respondnt has not paid inspite of notice of demand dated the 17th April, 1971 duly served on 24th April, 1971. (ii) That the respondent has after the 9th day of June, 1952 sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises to other persons without obtaining the consent in writing of the petitioner or her predecessor in interest. (iii) That the premises was let out for residence and neither the respondent nor his member of his family is residing therein for more than six months immediately before the filing of this petition. (iv) That the respondent has acquired vacant possession of a residence and has shifted there along with his family."

(3.)The petition was contested by the appellant. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the appellant never residing in the premises in dispute and has all along been residing at No. 1, Jaipuria. Building since much prior to the hiring/commencement of tenancy of the premises in disputeEver since the commencement of tenancy, the appellant had the authority, sanction, consent and was well within his rights to sub let, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the premises in dispute and in fact had been doing so ever since the commencement of tenancy, i.e, since the year 1913 when the building in question had just been built and let to the appellant. The relationship of landlord and tenant was also denied. It was also pleaded that the appellant had deposited the arrears of amounting to Rs. 4,800.00 at the rate of Rs. 120.00 per month w.e.f. December, 1958 to March, 1972 with the Rent Controller, Delhi to be paid to the respondent against proof of her claim or to the rightful claimant. Several other pleas were raised, but we are not concerned with those pleas for the purposes of this appeal.
;


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