SIDHU RAM Vs. RAMESHWAR DASS
LAWS(DLH)-1983-7-14
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on July 29,1983

SIDHU RAM Appellant
VERSUS
RAMESHWAR DASS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.L.Jain, J. - (1.)Sidhu Ram is a tenant from 1959 in the disputed premises which comprised one room, a kitchen, common bath and latrine on the first floor since 1959. His eviction Was sought by the landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement and non-payment of rent. As regards the non-pavment of rent, he was given the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). The Additional Controller by his order dated 31-3-1975 directed eviction on the other ground. His appeal was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 5-5-1978. Hence, this second appeal.
(2.)Respecting the purpose of letting, the learned Tribunal held that the premises were let for residential purposes only. The appellant with his wife arid children is living in the premises and runs his shop in the ground floor. In deciding the requirement of the landlord, one important consideration is the size of his family. The family of the landlord cosists of his wife and three married daughters. The learned Tribunal has assumed that he had also got three sons, and since the time premises were let out in the year 1959, his family has grown. Proceeding on that basis, the two room accommodation in possession of the landlord was held to be insufficient for his need. The learned Tribunal disbelieved the allegation that the eviction was sought only to re-let. The learned Tribunal noticed that the landlord had inducted one Davinder as a tenant about 2 years back on the second floor, but that portion was not suitable as the landlord and his family was residing in the first floor, were most convenient for his requirement. The letting of a portion on the second floor 2 years prior to the filing of the eviction petition would not lead to any inference that the respondent has sought eviction in a mala fide manner. The.se findings are under challenge.
(3.)It was urged by Mr. Taneja for the tenant appellant that it was not specifically pleaded or proved by the landlord why .the aforesaid premises in the second floor which fell vacant in 1977 were unsuitable and, therefore, had to be re-let. That apart, the accommodation in possession of the landlord is two rooms, one covered verandah and was sufficient and suitable for the old couple and for the occasional visits of his married daughters.
;


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