Tek Chand, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal from order under the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 by the tenant who feels aggrieved from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal ordering his eviction. The landlord hid filed an application under Section 14(1 )(e) of the Act seeking tenant's ejectment on the ground - that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof -and that the landlord.........has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.
(2.) IT is a double storeyed house in Nizam -ud -din area. The accommodation on the two floors is identical. There is also a second floor on which there is a barsati. The landlord's family consists of himself, his wife and a college going unmarried daughter and two sons. One son is living with him and is unmarried and the other son is serving in the Army outside Delhi. At present the landlord is residing in a flat in Connaught Circus which he has taken on rent. Besides his family, there also lives in one room as his sub -tenant his brother -in -law S. L. Chopra. The drawing cum dining room is being shared by them. The Rent Controller, while dismissing the landlord's petition, did find that the rented premises at present in the occupation of the Petitioner were not sufficiently commodious and he required the suit premises for his own family's residence. He, however, refused the relief principally for the reason that the ground floor of which the suit premises form part fell vacant in 1958 and again in 1959 and instead of occupying the ground floor the landlord rented the premises on a higher rent than what was fetched previously. The Rent Controller thought that the requirements of the Petitioner were not bona fide. The landlord, however, was successful in his appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that there was no reasonable ground to doubt the bona fides of the landlord's requirements when he had not occupied the ground floor on its falling vacant first in 1958 and again in 1959 especially when he had explained that the upper storey has more accommodation and therefore, more convenient for him and for his family.
(3.) A second appeal was filed in this Court which was heard by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. It was argued before him on behalf of the tenant that there was no clear and specific statement in the evidence of the landlord that the son was living at present in the flat occupied by the landlord along with his brother in law. It was also contended that there was not sufficient material as to whether the business of the son was prosperous and whether he had achieved economic independence from his father. The question whether the son was dependent on his father had not been considered at all by the Controller and no finding had been given by the Tribunal. In these circumstances the Hon'ble the Chief Justice sent the case back to the Court of the Rent Controller for an enquiry. A report has now been received. According to the Kent Controller's report Netar Krishan is living with his parents. There is also evidence led in this case to show that Netar Krishan is living in the same house along with the other members of the family. This contention is no longer opposed by the learned Counsel for the tenant. It was also found that it has not been established that Netar Krishan had not achieved economic independence as a result of the working of the shop. The contention of the landlord that the shop was running at a loss has been disbelieved. Adverse comments were also made on the fact that the books of account were not produced and that it was erroneously stated that no account books had been maintained. The Rent Controller thought that Netar Krishan had sustained a loss of about Rs. 8,000/ - out of the total investment of Rs. 12,000/ - and in the circumstances he found it unbelievable that Netar Krishan should continue this business. He concluded that Netar Krishan was not proved to be dependent on his father, the Petitioner;