SHANTT SHARMA Vs. VED PRABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed after grant of special leave in this Court by the tenant-appellant challenging a decree for eviction.

(2.) It appears that the respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction before the Rent Controller, Delhi on various grounds. The Rent Controller who heard the petition of the respondent rejected the petition on other grounds but only granted an order for eviction under S. 14(1)(e) i.e. the premises were bona fide required by the respondent-landlord for their own residence. It is not disputed that these premises are residential and the Courts below, the trial Court and the appellate Court both came to the conclusion that the respondent-landlord has established his bona fide requirement and on these findings the order of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under S. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been maintained.

(3.) Before the Tribunal a contention was advanced that the appellant-tenant had come to know that the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA' for short) has cancelled the lease in favour of the respondent-landlord and therefore the respondent ceased to be the owner of the property and as such is not entitled to a decree for eviction under S. 14(1)(e). The landlord-respondent, on the other hand, contended that as a small portion of the premises in occupation of the appellant-tenant is on another plot which under the conditions of the DDA was meant for non-residential purposes and in this view of the matter a notice for cancellation of the lease was given but on representation made by the respondent-landlord the DDA has stayed further action and it therefore could not be contended that the lease has been terminated by the DDA or that the respondent has ceased to be the owner of the property in question. The learned Tribunal therefore repelled the contention advanced by the tenant-appellant before it and maintained the order of the Rent Controller for eviction.